Ethics in Public Management 2nd

Edition H George Frederickson

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-in-public-management-2nd-edition-h-george-fr
ederickson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Ethics and Management in the Public Sector 1st Edition

Alan Lawton

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-and-management-in-the-
public-sector-1st-edition-alan-lawton/

Public Administration Understanding Management Politics

and Law in the Public Sector David H. Rosenbloom

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-administration-
understanding-management-politics-and-law-in-the-public-sector-
david-h-rosenbloom/

Public Health Ethics Cases Spanning the Globe 1st

Edition Drue H. Barrett

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-health-ethics-cases-
spanning-the-globe-1st-edition-drue-h-barrett/

Performance Management in the Public Sector 2nd Edition

Wouter Van Dooren

https://textbookfull.com/product/performance-management-in-the-
public-sector-2nd-edition-wouter-van-dooren/
Ethics and Responsibility in Finance 1st Edition Paul
H. Dembinski

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-and-responsibility-in-
finance-1st-edition-paul-h-dembinski/

Shipbuilding Management George Bruce

https://textbookfull.com/product/shipbuilding-management-george-
bruce/

Managing and Measuring Performance in Public and

Nonprofit Organizations An Integrated Approach 2nd
Edition Theodore H. Poister

https://textbookfull.com/product/managing-and-measuring-
performance-in-public-and-nonprofit-organizations-an-integrated-
approach-2nd-edition-theodore-h-poister/

Public Health Ethics Stephen Holland

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-health-ethics-stephen-
holland/

PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVES ON DISABILITY :

science,social justice, ethics. 2nd Edition Donald J.
Lollar

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-health-perspectives-on-
disability-sciencesocial-justice-ethics-2nd-edition-donald-j-
lollar/
Ethics
•
In
Public
Management
This page intentionally lefi blank
Ethics
•
In
Public
Management

Second Edition

H. George Frederickson
and Richard K. Ghere, Editors
 First published 2013 by M.E. Sharpe

Published 2015 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by

any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any informati on storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notices
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise,
or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas
contained in the material herein.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and
knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or
experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should
be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for
whom they have a professional responsibility.

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and

are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ethics in public management / edited by H. George Frederickson and Richard K. Ghere. —

Second edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7656-3250-0 (hardcover: alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-7656-3251-7 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Public administration—Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Public administration—United States.
3. Political ethics—United States. I. Frederickson, H. George.

JF1525.E8E8567 2013
172’.2—dc23 2012038677

ISBN 13: 9780765632517 (pbk)

ISBN 13: 9780765632500 (hbk)
 Contents

Preface vii

1. Introducti on
Richard K. Ghere 3

Part I. The JVloral Architecture of Organizations

2. The Anatomy of Ethical Dysfun ction

Carole L Jurkiewicz 23

3. Publi c Serv ice Morals and Ethics: Thin and Thick Dilemmas
in Routi ne and Cri tical Situat ions
Roben Schwartz. 42

4. Power and the Ethics of Reform

CiaTli1l O'Kelly alld Melvill Dubllick 59

Part II. Reassessing Corruption in the Twenty-First Century

5. Search ing for Vi rtue in the Publ ic Life

H. George FredericksOIl 91

6. Oversight and Accountabi lity in Contingency Contracting:

Ethical Management in a Conllie! Zone
Frallk AI/echiarico (llId Gjalr de Graaj 101

7. The Beleaguered Ideal: Defending NCAA Amateuri sm

1. P(IIrick Dobel 123

,
";

Part III. Individual Volition in Public Institutions

8. From Classical Ratio nal ism to Psychological Reali sm in

Ethical Dec ision-Making
James S. Bowman {/lid Jonatholl P West 155

9. Mirror Images: Con fli ct of Interest in Politics and Psychology

AI/drew Stark t 72

10. Guerrilla Government

Rosemary O'Leary 193

II . Tacit Knowledge: The Foundation of Information M anagement

Raymond Iv. Cox 11/ and 5/1cheta Pyakll ryal 2 16

')art IV. Ethics in Nonprofit Organizations

12. The Prospects fo r Reconciling Sector-Specific Eth ics in a

Contex t of Blurred Boundaries, Ubiqu i tou s Networks, and
Hypcrmoocrnity
GIIY B. Adams and Danny L. Balfollr 243

13, Ethical Challenges in Nonprofit Organi zation s:

Maintaining Public Tru st
Kevin P K eams 265

Part V. E thical Issues in G lobal Contexts

14. Public Servic e Ethics in Afri ca: Renewed Hope for an

Integrated Ethics Framework
Dialle E. YO{ier (llId Ten ), L Cooper 293

15. Words Maki ng Worlds: Rhetoric and Ethi cs in

Globa l Organiwtions
Richard K. Ghere 334

16. Conclus ion

Richard K. Ghere 361

About the Editors and Con tributors 379

Index 385
 Preface

To borrow words from Frank Locsscr, thi s book is the latest product of Ihe
"oldest established p erman ent floatin g" seminar on e thics in public policy and
administration, As Ri ck C herc descri bes in t he introduction of thi s second
edit ion of Ethics in Public MOI/agement, thi s fl oating seminar started twenty
years ago. O ver Ihe years new ethics scholars have joined in and brought
their interests \0 the semi nar. Bul the primary emphases have remained the
salllc-our in sistence that the study of ethics be empiricall y informed and
con textually nailed down. II i s ontable that, as this fl oat ing semi nar has moved
along, the general study of publ ic secto r eth ics has also moved a long a nd , we
arc happy to say, moved generally in the direction of more empiricism and
contex tualizat ion. Compared to twenty years :lgo, eth ics sermons and ethics
as Sunday school lessons are onw less often of u nd in serious cthics scholar-
ship. And contemporary ethics scholarshi p is more applied than it W <l S twenty
ycars ago and is, as a result , more practical and useful.
The subject or field o f publ ic sector eth ics scho larshi p has changed in
another impo rtant way. Our subject or fi eld has found an academic home in
the journal Public Inlegrily , now in its fourteenth year. Published quarterl y by
M.E. Sharpe, Public IllIegril)' is the journal of the Section on Pu blic Sector
Ethics of the A merican Society for Public Admini stration and is supported
by the Counci l on Governmental Ethics Laws, the International Ci ty/County
Management Association, and the Council o f State Governments. Public
Inlegrity is in thecapable edi torial hands of James S. Bowman, editor in
chief, and Jonathan P. West, managing edi tor. The processes of objective peer
rev iew brought to the study of pu blic sector eth ics by Public Inlegrity have
signifi cantl y improved the quality of our scholarshi p.
We thank Harry Briggs, exec uti ve editor at M.E. Sharpe, for encourage-
ment, reminders, deadlines, and unn agging support.

vi i
viii PREFACE

Finall y, we dedicate the second edition of Ethics in Public Mallagemellt to

the memory of John A. Rohr, who died ofParkinson's di sease in August 20 II .
John wrote the for eword to the f'i TSt book in the '"noating ethics seminar" series,
Ethics and Public Administratioll, in 1993. He was our great constitut ional-
ist, fo rever reminding us o f uro origins and urging us to ay p alle ntion to the
imcrpl ay o f al w, organi zation , administration, and dcmocrali c g overnmen t.
John was the ethics scholar we all aspire to be,
Ethics
•
In
Public
Management
This page intentionally lefi blank
 1
Introduction

Richard K. Chere

Thi s v olume follows two earlie r projec ts unde rtaken by Frederic kson ( 1993)
and Frederickson a nd Ghcrc (2005) to present collec tio ns of theore tical es-
says and empirical anal yses on ad mini strati ve ethics. T hree years before the
publ ication of the fi rst volume- Frederick son 's Erhics (/Ild Public Adm illis-
m llioll-the National Commi ssion on the Public Ser vice released Leadership
fo r America ( al so known as the Volckcr Comm i ssion Rep0rl) that tatested to
"the quiet rci sis" in government whereby

too many o f the best of the nalion's senior e xec utives arc ready 10 leave
government. and nol enough oftsi rnosl talcntcd young people arc wi lling 10
joi n. Thi s erosio n in the attracti veness in public service al all levels- most
speci fi call y in the federal c ivil scrvice- undermi nes the ability o fgovern-
ment 10 respond effecti vely 10 the needs and aspiratio ns o fthe A merican
people, and ult imately damages the democratic process itself. ( 1989, xiii)

For the Volc kc r Commi ssion, the si sue o f p olit ical legiti macy at that ti me
appeared foundat ional to both the nature of thequiet c risis and proposals to
address il. Spec ifi call y, the commi ssion 's Task F o rce on Public Pe rc ept io ns
of the Public Se rvic e recog nized the causa lity betwecn percept ions of ethical
abuse in government and c halle nges to legiti macy as follo ws : "Co ntributing to
the public's negati ve image of go vernment is the s uccessio n o f ethics scandal s
fa nd simil ar fa ilings] ... The resul ti ng scnse o f laie nation ricochets against
publ ic servants" (1990, 64).
Altho ugh only a few pecifi
s c references to improving ethics and profession-
alism appear within the broad scope of the commission 's recommendatio ns, the
3
4 G HERE

context of the report related adm inistrative ethics to the problem of political
legitimacy in a manner generall y consistent with thi s logical sy llogism:

I. Legitimacy depends upon trust in go vernment.

2. Perception s of ethical failures on the part of "faceless bureaucrats"
threaten el gitimacy.
3. Therefore , ethics reform promi ses to estore
r political legitimacy.

Further, the comm ission' s report implied that the rather straightforward
nex us between eth ics and pu blic perception could be underslOod as low-
hanging fru it call ing for immediate attention in rebui lding the public service .
In particular, the report quotes Pres ident George H. W. Bush i n us pport o f
"goal one- rebuildlingJ the public's trust: It's not rea ll y very c omplicated.
It 's a question of knowing right from wrong, avoiding conflicts of interest,
bend ing over backwards to sec that there's not even a per ception of con fli ct
of interest" ( 1990, 14).
Particular references to ethics and the public trust inthe Volcker Commis-
sion Report delineated the scope of con versation about publi c ethics leading
up to the c onference that George Frederickson con vened on the Study o f
Government Ethics at Park Ci ty, Utah , in June 199 1 and to the publication o f
Ethics alld Public Admillislrluioll (based on the Park City papers) in 1993. In
fact, President Bush's remark-as clear and forthri ght as it appears-actually
spoke to some rather complex, dialectical conundru llls that festered beneath
the surface of "government eth ics tal k" as it rclated to poli tical legitimacy.
The president spoke in earnest that "knowing right from wrong" wou ld seem
not :1\ all complicated, but it followed that such awareness mi ght extend be-
yond mailers of law to more generali zed publi c standards and ex pectation s.
In this regard , it could be argued that Leadership fo r America more directly
addressed the extralegal offenses of "deceit and manipulation " associated
with the Vietnam con fli ct and Watergate affair than with particular illegalities,
although these did in 1~lct occur (Jos 1993,365). In r eferring to the obligation
of "avoiding con fli cts of interest, bending over backwards to see that t here 's
not even a eprceptio n of confli ct of interest," Pres ident Bush impli ed that
for the public offi cial, conserving the public trust or legitimacy is asoften a
matter ofsatisfying public perceptions as abid ing by the law.
In his "Conclusion" to Ethics alld Public Admillistratioll , Frederickson
situated eachorlhat volume 's chaptercontrihutions wi thin various theoretical
categories "concerned w ith what we know about govern ment ethics" ( 1993.
243). To varying degrees in eachof the fi ve categories, he revealed the con-
ceptual wrinkles that foll ow from a per ceptual underpinning o f egitimacy
l
as public trust. For ex ample, although the fi rst category "The Nature of Per-
 INTRODUCTION 5

sons: Good or Bad" might seem directl y resolvable through tests of Kan tian
imperati ves, Frederickson raised the interveni ng problem o fcomex, related
to ei ther societal or org:ll1izational cult ures as eclipsing Kant 's imperatives.
In et rms of the second category, "Maki ng Ethical Decisions: Doing Right or
Wrong." he borrowed from Herbert Simon to propose a "bounded eth ics"
wherein the public admi nistrator's moral authori ty to make ethical deci-
sions is hemmed in by any number of el gislative and budgetary constrai lllS.
Interpreting that decision-making quandary as a question of accountabili ty,
Frederickson introduced a third category, " Democracy and Eth ics: The Issue
of Aecoulllability," which pits the perceived need to exact accountability as
a bureaucratic control against the ethical warrant t o "take responsi bility"
proactively or claim ex tensive bureaucratic di scretion to fosler ethical gov-
ernance in a democracy. Fourth. Frederickson opened Pandora 's box to deal
with the big questions related to "Policy Ethics and Politics" as di stinct from
the ( more?) "petty ethics" o f govern ment corruption (253-254). Here, he
mused as to whether and to what ex tent appointed public admini strators bear
responsibi li ty for "big" policy questions as distinct from legislators. cle(;ted
executives, and j urists fo rmalt y involved in pol icy processes. In each of these
four discussions, Frederickson traced the contours of the government ethics
dialogue that reOects creat ive tensions in t he dialcctic between the obv ious
and forthri ght (';knowing the difference betwcen right and wrong") and the
more complicated relationship between legitimacy and perception.
Frcderickson's examination of the fifth theoretical category, "Methodology
and Knowledge in Public A dmin istration Ethics," encountered a fundamental
dilemma that accompanies the dialectic between fonhrightlegalism and per-
ce ived legi timacy. CIc:lrly, knowledge :tbout laws, rules, controls, and other
interventions is am enable to

the primary and dominant approach to the study of pub lic administration
[. which] is positivist. rational, and empirical ... To the rational ist. reason
alone can prov ide the knowledge of the existence and nature of theory.
Rationality is also used to describe the view that reality is a unified, coher-
ent, and explicable system . (255)

He then d iffercnt iated among particular positivi st methodologies (survey re-

search, interviews, usc of secondary data. casc stud ies, and experiments) that
rcsearchcrs fo llowed i n their chapter COlllri butions fo r the 1993 volume.
Then Frederickson turned to alternati ve, post-positivist thought that chal-
lenges the " presumed objectivi ty of the posi tive-empirical-rational school,"
which asserts that "social structures such as aws, l ru les, organizations, and
governments 'do not ex ist independen t of human consciousness' ... To the
6 G HERE

post-pos iti vist analys is is in terpretation, notan objective i ntcrpretation of the

facts" (256-257, quot ing Harmon and Mayer 1986, 287 ; emphasis theirs).
After citi ng two chapter contributions that approached post-positivist analy-
sis, Frederickson argued that such interpretation provides a clearer lens for
observing actual behavior. Often , assessmelllS of leg itimacy (as anchors for
"public s tandards and expectations") stradd le the di vide between the wo t
research orielllations; on the one hand , positivist methods for measuring pub-
li c opinion arc available o n the presumption that expectation s ( placed upon
govern ments and political systems) arc relati vely convergent and constant
rather than dynamic "moving targets" (see los 1993,362).
On the other hand, Philip l os (whom Frederickson quoted in the 1993
" Introduction") raised still another dilemma that arises in examining expecta-
tions (in particular, expectations about the nature and severity o fcorruption)
that arc by nature dynamic. In this egard. r l os illustrates this movement by
ex plaining the essence o f nonlegal corruption as follow s:

Once the notion of a publ ic sphere and public offi ces gains a of othold in
society, these offi ccs can be corruptcd in ways that mayor may not violate
thc law. Thi s isso because these offices and the people who serve in these
offices, because they are public offices and public offi cials, become part of
a d ynamic political process that generates new standards and expectations.
These offi ces become linked to largcr processes and goal s i n a waythat
generatcs new d emands. (364)

In this 1993 essay, los appears to have been prophetic in suggesting that
"legal corrupt ion " could ultimately prove more destructi ve than outright
bribery (363). Aspoli tical theorist Michael Sandel poi nts out in IV/Ill' M Olley
Call " Bu)" infl uence peddli ng and similar legal activities constitutccorruption
as processes that lead to the degradation of government insti tutions:

We oft en associate corruption with ill-golten gain s. But corruption refers 10

more than bribes and illicit payments. To corrupt a good or social process
is to degrade it. to treat it according 10 a lower mode of valuation than is
appropriate to il. (201 2. 34)

By implication los recommended that researchers di rect attention to specific

contexts, just a s Frederickson did in discussions of the first four theoreti -
cal categories concern ing the nature of persons, making ethical deci sions.
exerci sing discretion, and attending to the big policy questions. Thus, the
cu mulative effects o f interrelated d ialectics (of legality vcrsus expectations.
observation of facts versus interpretation, and dynamic--or perhaps less than
 INT RODUCTION 7

stablc--cx pcctations vcrsus durable norms) implied that knowledge acqui si-
tion through public ethics research could indeed b e m essy. All the while, the
ethics con versation had become fe rtile and robust.
Although the sccond of the three volume, Ethics alld Public Mallagcmem
(2005), moved Frederickson 's concern for cOllfext forward , it reached out as
well to capture con versation within the academy about what da ministrati ve
ethics arc or should be in r elation to societal issues. The identity con versa-
tion about adm inistrati ve ethics as refl ected through scholarl y research had
been aptly c haracterized in Terry Cooper's commentary " Big Questions in
Administrative Ethics : A Need f or Focused , Collaborati ve Effort" (2004),
which presented the crux o fthe si sue as follows:

More than a passing fad. administrati ve ethics has demonstrated its s us-
tainability a nd its centrali ty to the fi eld. What is lack ing with respect to
these developments is anything like a ocused f effort by groups o fscholars
to study speci fi c sets o f significant research questions in a sustained and
systematic fashion . .. Not inte nded to preclude o rexcl ude other work on
other quest ions, the call here is forthe establishment of acenter of gravity
for the development of admin istrati ve ethics around some focused co[-
[aborative efforts, Di versity o finterests articulated by many from various
areas in public administration are eneded t o ekep lhe fi eld fresh and lively;
focused efforts o fthose mainly committed to study ing administrati ve ethics
may be required t o rpovide s ustainabi[ity. coherence. and suffic ient weight
to a dvance it solidly into the core o fpublic admini stration. (395)

Coope r then ex tended the conversation by proposing four questions that

might lend coherence to public ethics research:

I. What are the nOllllative foundations for public administrati ve ethics?

2. How do American admin istrati ve ethical norms fit into a global
contex t?
3. How can organization s be designed to be s upporti ve of eth ical
conduct'?
4. When should we trcal people equally in order to treat them fa irl y,
and when should we treat them unequall y? (404)

£Il1ics (llId Public Mallagement (Frcderi ckson and Ghere 2005) drew upon
two of thesc qucstions as organi zing criteria; fi ve chapter contributions ap-
peared undcrthc volume section "Organization Designs That Support Ethical
Behavior" and thrce undcr "Admin istrati vc Ethics in G loba[ Pcrspective ." It
is worth noting that thc chapters includcd in the g ol bal perspccti ves section
8 GHERE

corresponded to critical events that had occurred during the pre vious decade,
includi ng g ol bal econom ic activities and controversial trade agreements, the
9/1 I terrorist attacks, the Afghani stan and Iraq wars, and the abusive rt eatment
of pri soners atthe Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detention facilities.
But more importan t, editorial efforts in the 2005 volume we re deliber-
ate in assessing whether and how chapter con trib utions related to Cooper's
focus and coherence cri teria (in the " Introduction") and to the overall
comportment of "Adm ini strati ve Ethics in the Twen ty-First Century" (in
the "Conclusion ").
Notwi thstand ing its attentiveness to research focu s and coherence, the
2005 volu me did, at leastimplicitly, address the publ ic ethics- legi timacy
conundrum in chapter con tributions that focused on ( I) the egitimacy
l of ap-
propriately used executi ve power, (2) the variation o f m oral gaency in thick
and thi n accountability e nvironments, (3) the questionable legitimacy o f the
private-sector-oriented new managerial ism, and (4) blind spots inadjudicati ng
responsibi lity in public-pri vate partnerships. I fEthics ill Public Management
(in reference to the 1993 volume) amounted to old wine in new bottles. it is
hard to decipher whether the "old" or "n ew" is desirable to which particu-
lar stakeholders (and why) in conversations about public eth ics. We might
speculate that ad mini strati ve practitioners, along wi th some in the academy,
ex pect lineages of theoretical conti nui ty accompanied by inno vati ve strate-
gies that eli ci t effi cacious behavior; if this is the case, commentaries about
dilemmas and dialectics do li ttle to sati sfy those expectation s. That said, a
number o f critical events have occulTed since Ethics ill Public M(/I/ogemem
was publ ished in 2005 that in some manner reOect alarming levels of political
di scontent, pO];lTization, and mi strust that dimini sh governmental el gi timacy.
Con sider, for example, the follo wing events:

• the 2008 financial crises in the United States that led to provocati ve
federal assistance to major finan cial in stitutions and auto makers;
ongo ing politi cal acc usation s c harging that governmental age ncies
(such as the U.S. Env ironmental Protec ti on Agency and the National
Ocean ic and Atmospheri c Admini stration) have fabri cated climate
chan ge narrati ves;
the U.S. Supreme Court's 20 10 landmark decision , CirizellS United 1'.
Federal Elecriol/ Commission, that prohibited governmental restric-
tions on poli tical expe nditures by corporations and employee union s as
encumbering First Amendment " free speech" rights;
• an ideological schi sm inthe U.S. Congress, so dysfunct ional as to thwart
vital legislation for federal debt and spending limits in 2011 , resulti ng
in a downgrade o fthe nation 's cred it rating;
 INTRODUCTION 9

the [ [2th U.S. Congress (20 [ [-20 [2) having passed the fewest number
o f bill s in forty years (and less than one-third of those passed by the
[ [ [th), some members placing a higher priority o nparing back the federal
government than o n mak ing the nation's laws.

As was the case with the events highlighted in the 2005 volume, these recent
developments as well affect expectation s abolll publ ic roles and respons ibi[i-
tics as profound cha llenges to the essence of govern ment legiti macy or at
[cast to Iradi liona[ logi cs of legi timate govern mental actions. The stridency
and shril lness of these legitimacy cha[ lenges have become commonplace in
the rhetoric of congressional figures. Consider, fo r example. how various
representatives of the majority party of the House of Re presen tatives have
excoriated the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an appointed panel
created through health-care reform legislation to review Medicare costs, as
"a centrali zed board o f bureaucrats to control how health care is allocated"
(Cantor, Vi rginia); "an egregious violation o f pri vacy and patien t rights"
(Gingrey, Georg ia); and " 15 unelected , unaccountable, burea ucrats who
are there for one and on ly one reason and that is to ration health care to our
sen iors and engage in price con trols"(Hensarling, Texas) (USA Today 2012).
Such rhetoric speaks convinc ingly of a highly toxic political culture, which
government scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein-respecti vel y
from prestigious center-left and center-right policy institutions-appraise as
follows in their rccent book I(s Even Worse Thall If Looks:

Trashing others, undermining their very legitimacy, and lying open ly and
repeatedly about individuals and institutions now bring no viable penalty
or public obloquy. In fact. it can mean fame and fortune. Changing the
country's poisonous political cu lture, which has metastasized beyond the
polit ical area, requires first an effort 10 reslOre some semblance of public
shame. (2012. 180)

Efforts that put partisan ideology above national problem-solving and hold
institutions hostage (3- 30) constitute direct assau lts on govern ment legitimacy.
In the words of a party leader in the Senate, " I think that some o f our mem-
hers may have thought the [financial] default issue was a hostage you might
take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn ' t think that. IVh(lf we did learn is
this-it's a hostage worth r{lI/soming" (25 ; emphasis in original).
Reacti ng to Mann and Ornstein's book, Paul Voleker (fonner Federal
Reserve Board Chairman) comments, "More than anytime in my li feti me,
the United States is challenged at home and so our place in the world. When
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein get together to sound a loud alarm about
10 GHERE

the way our system i sbeing ot rn apart, it's time to listen- and li sten hard ..
We beller get to work " (Mann and Ornstein 20 12, back cover). Presuming that
competent public profess ional s wi ll shoulder much of hit s work, an appropri -
ate syllogism l inking fragmen tcd el gitimacy, ethics, and public service JlOW
casts the public admini strator as part ofthe solution rather than the problem
(i n stark contrast to the syllogism of the I990s above):

I. Broken polirica/ institutions in the Uni ted Sta tes are curre nt ly un-
dermining government leg itimacy.
2. Perception s of broken politics delegi timizc at/millisrralil'e institutions
nonetheless.
3. Therefore, public sector professionals can help reg<lin legitimacy by
doing erhics.

Put another way, it is now time toextend ethics conversations both in t he

academy and the professional commun ity in such ways as to si tuate tradi tional
concerns for design s and control s, corruption as illegal activity, glohal ethi cs
as consiste nt with U.S. reform s, and othcrs into broader scale in refe rence
to the probl em of legitimacy, which is fu ndamental to virtually all govern-
ing systems. These ex tended conversation s should center upon the e thi cal
competence of professionals (see Bowman, West, and B eck 20 10) needed
to function effectivel y in , and improve, the public a rena as much as or more
than upo n strategies to rein those profess ional s in.
Deteriorated el gitimacy call s upon committed publi c serv:lI1 ts to become
all the more relian t on moral qualities such as those commended by S te phen
Bai Icy: "optimi sm, courage, and Fairness tempered b y c harity" ( 1965 , 286).
Moreover, those ethical agen ts are well advised 10 condi tio n their me nIal at-
titudes to re main "pliable" by recogni zing that

men and measures .. . are morally ambiguous. Even if th is were not a

basic truth about the human condition. however. moral judgments in the
public serv ice would be made di fti cult by the shift ing sands of context. An
awareness of the contextual comlit ions which affect the arranging of moral
pri orities is an essential mental attitude for the moral public servant.
(Bailey 1965,289)

If the current pol itical al ndscape is one o fegi

l timacy at hay, it might again
be asked- as in the Volcker Commission Report- what th is means for ethi-
cal profess ionals in public service and for us bsequent research that might
support them. Appl ying Stephen Bailey's perspccti ve, we would focus on
how in this curren t situation "public service Lcan beJ consiste nt enough to
 INTRODUCTION II

deserve respect from others (and o neself) and pliable enough to accomplish
ethical objecti ves" (quoted in Bowman, West, and Beck 20 10, 92). In this
reg:lrd, it :lppears importmll to direct :IS much attention to what ethics do or
ca ll do for the professional as to what eth ics are or call be as a unified body
of theory and research. And if the spirit ofpublic admini stration is ultimately
contingen t on the courage (or more crudely s tated , the guts) of thecommitted,
dialog ue could turn to w hat it means to hu ild eth ical competency stich that
consummate professionals can do democraL)' under trying circumstances. In
th is respect, Bowman, West, and Beck elaborate upo n the necessi ty to build
ethical competence as follows:

Ethics is asystem that determines right or wrong in soc iety and prov ides
a means by which individuals C:ln beh:lve accordingly. It is a quest f or,
and underst:lnding of. the "good life." Ethics. therefore. is not primarily
about staying out oftfouble; it is about creati ng strength in individuals and
organizations. (20 10. 73, 75)

Such an cx pandcd convcrsation coaxcs out qucstions that relate to threc

particular si sues. Fi rst, follow ing Bailey, questions surface as to ex actl y
what measures of continuity and pliability arc required of public servants
commined to act boldl y in a contentious, polarized public arena. Second ,
conversations of ethical competence invite inquiry about component apti tudes
and abili ties such as those that Bowman, West, and Beck (2010) consider:
val ues management, moral reasoning, and indi vidual morali ty, versus publi c
morality and organi zational ethics. Third, it is appropriate 10 di rect the con -
versation back to the problem of theoretical focus and coherence, this time
wit h a particular sensiti vity fo r how the current scope of re search (as unified
as it may be) supports adm ini stnlli ve 1eildership among strident chall enges
to politi cal el gitimacy.

Consistency, Plia bility, and Et hical Competence as Related

to Legit im acy

Each of the fo urteen chapter contributions to foll ow fall s under one of fi ve

topical themes; it is worth noting how three of these section titles vary from
those in the 1993 and 2005 volumes. Borrowed from terminology in Chapter
4 (O ' Kell y and Dubnick). the first theme, ''The Moral Architecillre of Or-
gani zations," extends conversation about organizatioll de,~i8 l1s that support
ethical beha vior (used in 2005) so as to di rect atten tion to the underlyi ng
institutional n orms that account for overt practices and regu lations. The sec-
ond theme, " Reassessing Corruption in the Twenty- First Century," carries
12 GHERE

Frederickson's ( 1993) theme The problem-ulldersTalldillg public corrupTioll

forwa rd to incl ude the phenomena of legal (alo ng wi th illegal) corruption,
particularly those that degrade publ ic institutions a nd public lifc. A third sec-
tion heading, " Lnd ividual Volition i n Publ ic Instit utions," subsumes a w di e
range of individual behaviors and actions (some eth icall y commendable and
othcrs nOI) from a variety of rational, political. and psychological perspec-
tives. A fourth topic, "Ethics inNon profit Organ iw tions," acknowledges the
reality o f whal Paul Light calls thenew public service, implying that we have
witnessed "the end of the government-centered public service and the rise
ofa multi-sectored service to replace it" ( 1999, I). Finall y, the last theme.
"Ethical Issues in G lobal Contexts," parallels admillisTraTive eThics ill global
perspecTive (in the 2005 volume) in depicting inlernational efforts 10 improve
government ethics; nonetheless, it inc ludes concern for the normative character
of global organizations as well.
To varying degrees, the c hapter con tributions in each or ht e five topical sec-
tions deal with Bai ley's ( 1965) emphases upon cOllsisTellc), alld pliabilit), and
eThical COIII{Jetellce (as outlined in Bowman, West, and Beck 20 I0) as related t o
the problematic nature of system legitimacy. For example, in Part I: The Moral
Arehitecture of Organizations, Carole Jurkiewicz's account of ethicall y dysfu nc-
tional organizations of cuses upon legitimacy as rcnected through r e putation, a
crucial asset that determines the degree of trust placcd in the organization. T hat
reput<ltion depends on (he eth ical compc tence of the leader with regard to how
effi cac ious behavior is modeled, po licies arc articulatcd, and organ izational
mean ings are shared. Jurkiewicz demonstrates how dysfunc tional leadersh ip
and cultures inh ibit responsible ;ll1d responsive aclions.
In a case study that compares cultural contexts in Israel and Canada, Robert
Schwartz demonstrates how in -cu ltu re and in -group loyalties refl ect "thic k
ethics" that underm ine leg itimacy associated withun iversal moral st;mdards
of public governance. Schwartz argues that, inorder fo r public administra-
tors to become eth ica ll y competent and pliable, they need to recog nize and
work th rough the often-emerging dialectic between concern for close eth ical
relationships and detached moral standards. H e saserts, " It is time or f public
admini stration to stop putt ing its ehad in the sand about con nicting moral
pull s and ethical pushes faced by many public ollicial s." Schwartz's chapter
draws upon Cianin O' Kelly and Melvin Dubnick 's in terest in "thick"versus
"th in " accountabili ty (as developed i ntheir contribution to the 2005 volume)
that cames over to their chapter " Power and the Ethics of Reform" herein.
O ' Kelly and Dubn ick focus on the interplay between a lIIorallradiliOIl of
administrative ethics (i.e.,the "application of moral pri nciples toconduct . . . ")
and an ill$frumellfal fraditioll (i.e. , allention to the functional ity and role of
ethics inadapting to particu lar con texts inefforts to control and coord inate)
 INTRODUCTION l3

in order to probe legitimacy questions about po wer 1/I(111ifeSled Ihrol/ gll nll-
ics. For these authors, the indi vidual i s in herentl y fUllgible, "subject to the
powcr articulated as moral knowlcdge" conveyed through an "appropriate"
admin istrative ethics in sync withorgan ization control, r:ltherthan proactivcl y
pliable (Bai ley's [1965] desired attribute).
To reiterate, Part II : Reassessi ng Corruption in the Twenty- First Ccntury
embraces the proposi tion that perfectly legal forces and actions that degrade
the quality of public lifc, civic di alogue, and institutions amount to corrup-
tion as corrosive to poli tical el giti macy as (or perhaps even more corros ivc
than) patently illegal abuses of power and misappropriation s o f fund s. In
th is section , George Frederickson call s attention to the el gitimacy of "pub-
licness" in the fo rms of citi zen cngagement and grassroots participation
emerging globally as part of the new publi c service. In regard to the virtue
of consistency, he ex presses concern as to w hether the traditional public
admin istration canon (or basic set o frules) wi ll carryover to th is new publi c
service o f contracted-out governance and quasi-governmental enti ties. In
terms of teaching ethical competence, Frederickson is impartial as to the
pedagogical approach fo llowed so long as students of public affairs engage
in learn ing (however directed) that inculcates fundam ental public values to
be applied in various public arenas, whether "new" or "old." Relating to the
trepidations of con tracted-out governance, Frank Anechi;lrico and Gjalt de
Graaf examine entangl ed conundrums- some constituting illegal corrupt ion
and others that arc legal but toxic in relation to the public tru st--concerning
military contingency contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq. In t heir comparative
case study o fU. S. and Dutch contracting behaviors, thesc scholars undertake
analysis that encounters fund amental leg itimacy questi ons that "reveal an
ex panding g ray-area, between public and pri vate, between sovereign identi ty
and pri vate prerogative, in which public ethics and civic values arc al rgely
absent. The result is a fr ee- noat ing zone of uncertainty, where the ever-larger
disbursement of public fund s is met wi th increasingly inadequate reg ulation
and assess ment." In stark contrast t o Bailey's interpretation of pli abili ty as
an eth ical virtue,govcrnment "fl ex ibility" in these contracting contexts (such
as the el eway to subeontract with a brothel servicc) amounts to a recipe for
corruption.
Although it might appear odd to include Patrick Dobel's chapter on col-
legiate athleti c amatcurism in a section devotcd to publ ic corruption, there
is reason to associate the degradation of the amateur-athlete ideal- and the
communal life surround ing college sports- with the forces of comm ercia liza-
tion that crowd out thc publi c good and that drive offi cials inuni vcrsities and
related organizations toward corrupt practices. Regarding ethical competence
and pli abili ty, Dobel concl udes that thesc officia ls should take the ini tiati ve to
14 GHERE

"do eth ics" by rethinking the natureof amatcurism (and rccalibrating mlcs) by
factoring in the currcn t-day realit ics o f tudcnt
s life and thc various (in some
cases, hiddcn) costs incurrcd in simultaneous pursui ts o f tah letic excc llcnce
and acadcmic success.
Pari IU : Ind ividual Voli tion in Publ ic Institutions s tiuatcs Frederickson 's
( 1993) concern s for the naTllre of persons: good or bad and making ethical
decisions: doing rig/II or wrong in a moreexpansive range of inqui ries that
probe individual behavior and di scretion. James Bowman and Jonathan West
propose a psychological approach t o indi vidual decision-making as an alter-
native to more philosophical. rule-based orientations refle cted in traditional
expectations of legitimate government. These authors encourage moral actors
to relyon a psychological modcl thattri angulates among results o fan action
(consequentiali sm or teleology), pertinent ru les (duty ethics or deontology),
and p ersonal integrity or character (virtue eth ics) to resolve ethics con undrums.
Bowman and West argucthat th is ct chniquc "cnables thc managemcnt o f ethi-
cal ambiguity and provides help in making thc incvitable comprom ises. When
choices are guided by bencvolence, creativity, and an cthic of compromi se- a
moral tcnet of dcmocracy- there isat Icast the satisfaction that the problem has
been full y examincd and that the decision can be rationall y defended." Such
moral reason ing al ys the groundwork for ethical competence that "reSJX'nds
to thc complexity ofthc human condition." In a related chapterthat homcs in
on varying interpretations ofcOl/flier oj il/leresr, Andrew Stark demonstratcs
how both psychological and political undcrstandings of ocnflict and o f intercst
havc chnnged over t ime. Although Stnrk docs not address questions o fpoli ti-
eal leg itimaey per se, it could be snid that his findin gs impli citly chnraeteri ze
legitimacy in flu x-such that competent profess ionals need to rccognizc and
negotiate the multiple meanings nnd ex pectations auachcd to cvcn the most
basic of ethic al standards in governmcnt.
In her provocati vc chaptcr on gllerrilla gOllemmelll, Roscmary O ' Lcary
in essencc quest ion s the cffi cacy of some indi vidual mot ives to "do good"
in public burcaucracics in spitc o f pcrccived in stit utiona l barri ers to doi ng
so. Can personal passion, zeal , an d o utrage bc reconc iled with legitimate
opcrat ions in governmcnt age ncies, or are thcy in fac t t he pri mary ingred i-
e nts of ethi cs abu sc? O ' Lcary's gucrrill as arc clearl y pliable in that "thcy
arc not a fraid to reach into new tcrritory and ofte n sec k to drag the rest
o f thc systcm with the m to cx plore new poss ibil ities ." Yet presum ably,
that courage needs to be caI vened b y an cthi cal competcncy thatdi scern s
betwecn pcrsona l an d public mora lities (see Bo wman , Wcs t, and Bcc k
20 10,84- 85).
Raymond Cox and Suchcta Pyakuryal introduce re aders to the emcrging
fi el d of knowledge man agemcnt an d its potentia l for understandin g the
 INTRODUCTION 15

legitimate uses of d iscrct ionary judgment. Du ly noting the polirical in "po-

liticallegitimacy,"these scholars wonder if public admini strat ion education
program s that di sparage poli tics in effect undermine leg itimacy rather than
affi rm it. Bu t more to their poin t, they argue that wit hin publi c organi za-
tion. corruption is learned behavior that inhibit s the use of di screti on in
mak ing the hard calls to say "no" (as we ll as "yes"), partic ularl y when
deali ng with equity considcration s. Drawing on knowled ge managemen l
ideas, Cox an d Pyakuryal recogni ze that w eil kllowledge- that absorbed
and embedded t hrough ex perience- is vital t oan ethi cal competence that
approaches what Max Weber understood as becoming "a matu re [person]"
with a future orien tati on ( 1946, 128).
Paris IVand V deal with ethics concerns relating to increasingly visible gov-
ernance arenas that fa ll o utside the U. S. go vernmental sector- respecti vely,
nonprofi t entities and global organizations. In Pari IV: Ethi cs in Non profi t
Organi zations, Guy Adams and Danny Balfour focus on macrolevel legiti-
macy problems that government, business, and nonprofit sectors confront in
an era of hyper modern ity. Adams and Balfour speak to the particular problem
of ex ternal legitimacy in asserting that U.S. political in stitutions arc viewed
by others around the g ol be as "a system of governmen t that allowed Wall
Street to write self-serving rules , which put at ri sk the en tire global economy
. They [those of other societiesJ sec, in hs ort, a fund amental problem of
political accoun tability in the American system of democracy." For Adams
and Balfour, restoring legitimacy requ ires an et hic o f soci al responsibili ty
(nuher t han compl iance) that fu lfi ll s obl igation s to di verse stakeho lders
broadly con strued.
By con trast, Kevin Kearns concentrates on local-level nonprofit organi-
zations (N POs) that arc typica ll y involved in fi erce compet ition for donor
fund ing . For these organi zations, legitimacy depends upon the abili ty to dem-
onstrate the suc of business management processes; such pressures push NPOs
toward " ,1 more commercial approach to management and serv ice delivery"
and away from communi ty-based missions. (Incomparing these two chapters,
it is hard to miss the irony that the institutional processes that legiti mize NPOs
in the United States are much the same bureaucratic fo rces that othersociet-
ies around the world sec as "stul tify ing and suspect. ") Kearns maintains that
nonprofi t organi zations can counterbalance these imposed market pressures
by attend ing to civic activism and juggling a avriety of commendable value
orientations (or impu lses) such as volunteerism, professionalism, and civic
acti vism in addition to commercialization.
[n Part V: Eth ica [ Issues in Global Con tex ts, Di ane Yoder and Terry
Cooper update previous studi es of emergin g sta ndards and regional d-
fort s to establ ish common eth ics fram ework s by now focusing on s uch
16 GHERE

init iati ves innorthern and sub-Saharan Afri can coun tries . G eneral ly, these
allempt s to embed integrated frameworks that support tran spare ncy and
democrati c processes arc ye t at an awareness- ra ising stage o f normative
development, anti cipating atime w henthose values can be in stitu tionalized
as enforce ment mechan isms. Implicitl y, Yoder and Cooper' s contribu ti on
addresses legitimacy questi ons related to adialecti c betwecn a stron g
cult ure of communal harmony ( through the traditiona l valu es of II b llllfll
and serifi ) and the current con text of destabilizin g fo rces attributable to
global economic malai se, go vernmen t downsizing. and forei gn initiati ves
to eXlract nalUral resources fo rm the continent. In hi s study o f global (i.e .,
development, humanitari an, hum an ri ghts, and regulatory) organi zation s,
Ri chard Ghere examines how leaders rel y upon manipul ati ve rhetoric to
establi sh and main tain leg it imacy (or claim " the moral high ground")
in exertin g pol icy power in international di scourse communities. Since
most if not all rhetoric is manipulati ve (Le., persuasive) by natu re, ethical
competence cal ls fo r the s peaker to abide by parti cular fa irness guidelines
that govern ho w messages arc con veyed to global audi ences.

Instit utiona l Themes and T heoretical Coherence

Substantive commonali ties among the various chapter contribution s described

above coax out a few institutional themes that pertain to norms and ethics in
public o rganizations-for example:

I. The boundedness of eth ics, particularly in ambi guous contex ts;

2. The power forces :lround (and wi th in) in stitutional Jegitimacy-
and their ex plo itative potential;
3. The value o finstitutional learning and understanding;
4. Moral personhood and prudent judgment for eth ical disccrnment.

This section tracks e achof these themes to the four questions Tcrry Cooper
(2004) proposed for lending theoretical coherence topublic ethics rcsearch-
relating to (I ) normat ive foundation s, (2) Amcri can administrative norms in
global contexts, (3) organi zation designs to support cthics, and (4) the treat-
ment of equals and unequals. What follows offers some indication of whether
emphases on institutional el gitimacy in the s tudy o f elhi
cs align wilh ordi verge
from current trends in public ethics theory and research.
Firsl i n the 1993 volume, George Frederickson clarified boundedness of
ethics as follows : "In bounded ethics the adm inistrator fun ctions within the
limits of enabling el gislation. with limited budgets. u suall y ad vocating o r
at least supporting the purposes of the agency. Fundamental questioning o f
 INTRODUCTION 17

the purposes and practices of the agency, on the basis of issues of morali ty,
is seldom found and rarely cncouraged" (249). Th is particular theme relates
directly to Cooper's "big question" about the Jlormarive/ol/Ju/arioJls a/pub-
lic admillisTratioll ethics, but the alternat ive foundat ions he identi fi es would
lead to starkly different opinions on the appropriateness of these constrain ts.
On the one h:md, most interpretations of regime values (see Rohr 1989) as a
legitimate foundation wou ld du ly align th is bounded ness with constitutional
theory. Clearly, th is s tandard would castigate the secapades of government
guerrill as (O'leary. Chapter 10) asegreg iously unethical. On the other, those
who advance virtue as the foundation of eth ical obligation would argue that
bounded ness merel y refl ects a profess ional (ethics) agenda to reduce the
scope of one's personal moral ity. Cooper quotes one such virtue philosopher,
Ed mund Pincoffs, as follow s: " It is o urdail y business to assess. to appraise,
to judge persons. It is atask so mportant
i and central in li fe that it takes on a
li fe o f its own" (in Cooper 2004, 398). Thus, Pincoffs wou ld likely applaud
Dobcl's conclusion (in C hapter 7 ) that uni versities and related organi zations
(particularly the NCAA) need to take the initiative to rework the amateur-
ath lete ideal--certain ly in eaction
r to the increasing boundedness of com-
mercia lism and market power in U.S. soc iety (Frederickson in Chapter 5;
Kearns in Chapter 13).
Ethical boundedness relates as well to Cooper's third question about how
organizations can be designed to suppOrt ethical condllct. Here the institu-
tional nature of thi s boundedness issue fru stnltes some ethics reformers intent
on imposing instrumental designs (see O·Kel ly and Dubnick in Chapter 4)
since dysfun ct ional behavior is often learned fr om cu lture inside and beyond
the organ ization (Jurkiewicz in Chapter 2 ; Cox and Pyakurya l in C hapter
11). Incssence, ethics reformers wou ld do well to acknowledge the eth ical
boundedness of the individual psyche as it relates to vari ous interpretat ions
of appropri ateness and honesty ( Bowman and West in Chapter 8; Stark in
Chapter 9).
Second , the institutional dialectics related to raw power and ex ploi tation
resonate through each o fCooper's fou r big quest ions. Again, a nonnati ve
foundation steeped in virtue wou ld obligate one to "build stron g ethics cul-
tures in organi zations" and "sustainable, responsible social in stitutions" in
the face of power (Adams and Balfour in Chapter 12). But the question of
powcr concern ing the viabi I ityof A mericall global vallles ill global cOlITexts
becomes dicey regarding (I) the dominance of market ideology cmbedded
with in " global governance values" that some g ol bal organi zations impose on
de veloping societies (Ghere in C hapter 15), (2) the di srupti ve effects of such
" universal " moral standards on ethical bonds of relationship within particular
cullllral trad itions (Schwartz in Ch apter 3), and (3) the differences of rules
18 GHERE

and ex pectation s between nations involved in aprallel effort s s uchas military

contracting (Anechiarico and de Graafin Chapter 6). Ethics re form ers intend-
ing to redesign OIganizarions "to do good" should ex pect their elTorts either
to r einforce or rearrange power- in other words, "[understandingl ethics
[is understanding] the enforccment of power through ethics" (O' Kell y and
Dubn ick in Chapter 4). Finally with regard to equals (Imllll/equals, those who
wield raw power can ex acerbate ineq uali ties between rich and poor nations in
the contex t of international development (Ghere in Chapter 15), commercial
enti ties profi ting from college sports and student-athletes ( Dobel inChapter
7), and market-savvy nonprofit organizations and vulnerable populations in
local commun ities (Kearns in Chapter 13).
Third, the value of insti tutional learning relates back to Chris Argyris's
di stinction bet ween sillgle· and dOl/ble-loop learning that adds clari ty to what
organization el arn ing means: "Double-loop learn ing occurs when errors are
corrected b y changing the governing values and then the actions" (2002,
206). It therefore oceurs in a questioning (rather than defensive) atmosphere
in whi ch al l participants (including leaders) "say what they know yet fe ar
to say" and advocate their ideas "in a way that in vites inquiry into them"
(217)- in th is case, regarding how espoused norms relate to how systems
and processes actually work. Again, emphases on institutional (or double-loop
organizational) el arning add tex ture to each ofCooper's four big questions.
Institutional knowledge suppo rts the/OII11(/(I(iOllal virtue of mature judgment
directed toward an ethos of democracy (Cox and Pyakuryal in Chapter 11) that
is often seasoned b ythe abil ity to synthesize diffe ring pe rspecti ves (Bowman
and West in Chapter 8)--for example in terms of ethics ill a globa/ COlltext,
what humanitarian leadership enwi ls in the midst of armedconfli ct (Ghere
in Chapter 15).
Fourth , the themeof /IIoral personhood thlVugh jlldglllem-at least as it
was c haracterized b y Web er, "Here I andst : Ican do no other" (1 946, 128,
quoted in Cox and Pyakuryal in Chapter I )-raisesI some vex ing questions
related t o 1I0rmari vejol/J/(latiolls in general and reg ime values in particular.
Such could be the pr oclamation ofa government guerrilla (0' Leary in Chapter
10). provided the subversive action in qucstion was predicated on seasoned
judgment. As both a virtueand an area of ethical competence, judgment based
on institutio nal know ledge prepares one to negot iate the ot ugh value terrain
where orgallizatioll desiglls, protocols, and best practi ces do not suffice,
particularly where decisio ns deal wi th the treatment of equals alld III/equals
(Cox and Pyakuryal in Ch apter [ I).
So docs an understanding of public ethics centered upon system legi ti-
macy lie within the ex isting stream of theory and research, or does it charge
off in other directions? Even though nu merous commonalities can be found
 INTRODUCTION 19

(as indicated above) between the institutional themes outli ned here and core
theoretical questions (such asCooper's), the question nonetheless appears
diffi cult to answer- at least at the beginn ing of th is volume. What possibl y
nags at practitioners and scholars alike may well be the s ometimes fa int but
often-present dialectical character t hat an insti tutional perspecti ve brings to
public cthics in part icular and public admini stration in gcnera l. The conclusion
(Chapter 16) of thi s volu me fi rst demonstrates how competent adm inistrators
do elhics in ways that respond effecti vely to institutional problems in their
midst; second. it rev isits concern about how particular sensiti vities toward
legitimacy affect theoretical coherence in public eth ics research.

References

Argyris. Chris. 2002. "Double-Loop Learning. Teaching. and Research:' AClulemy

of Mall age melit Learllill g & Educlltiol1 I (2): 206-2 18.
Bailey. Stephen K. 1965. "Ethies and the Public Service." In Public Admillistmtioll
alld Democmcy. ed . Roscoc C. Martin. 283-298. Syracuse: Syracuse Uni ve rsity
Press.
Bowman. James S., Jonathan P. W est, and Marcia A. Beck. 20 IO. Achiel,illg COII/{Jeten-
cies ill the Public Sen,ice: The Pmfessiollo/ Edge. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Cooper. Terry L. 2004, ""Big Questions in Administrative Ethics: A Nced for Focused.
Collaborati ve Effon."' Public AdmilliSlmliOIl Relliew 64: 395-409.
Frederickson. H. George. 1993. Elhics ill Puhlic AdminislmliOIl. Armonk. NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Frederickson. H. George. and Richard K. Ghere. 2005. Ethics WId Public MlIIllIge·
mellt. 2nd cd. Armonk. NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Harmon. Michael M .. and Richard T. Maye r. 1986. Orgalliwlioll Theol}' for Public
AdmillistratiOIl. Boston: Little. Brown.
Jos, Phi lip. 1993. "Empirical Corruption Research: Beside the (Moral) Point." JoufIIal
of Public Allmil1istralioll Research and TheOl), 3: 359-375.
Li ght. Paul. 1999. The New Public Sen'ice. Was hington. DC: BrOOkings Institute
Press.
Mann. Thomas E .. and Norman J. Ornstein. 201 2. It's EI'eli Worse Than Ir Looks.
New York: Basic Books.
National Commission on the Publie Service. 1989. LealJership for America. Lexington.
MA: Lexington Books,
Rohr. John A. 1989. Elhicsfor BureaucralS: All Essay 011 Law alit! Values. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Sandel. Michael J. 20 12. Whllf Malley Call'! Buy: Tlte Mom/ Limits of Markets. New
York: Farrar. Straus and Giroux.
USA Todll): 201 2. ·'Oon't Let a P anel Control Care." April 9.
Weber. Max. 1946. From Max lVeber. trans. H.H . Genh and c.w. Mills. New York :
Oxford Uni versity Press.
This page intentionally lefi blank
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
It was no use to run, but they ran anyway. This was what Sam meant
when he said he knew what Jim was going to do. Jim Cochran was
completely blackballed in his own profession. As he said, he couldn't
have gotten a job stirring with a wooden paddle in a soap factory.
Tom Banning and his family went with them. They went as far north
as they could and finally stopped running on the edge of the
Canadian wilderness. They pooled their funds and bought some
wheat land and some cattle stock and tried to stop thinking beyond
the end of each day.
They were grateful for the absence of television, but they kept a
radio. Through it, they learned when the Apollo finally took off with its
three-man crew. They followed its two and a half day journey through
space and heard the voice of Captain Allan Wright announce they
were in lunar orbit.
A few hours later the landing capsule was disengaged from the
spaceship and Captain Wright and William Chambers rode it down.
Their voices were heard in exultation as they announced their first
steps on the surface of the moon.
It was night in northern Canada when the landing was made. Jim and
Sam and Tom and their families were outside watching the full moon,
trying to imagine how it was up there. From the house they heard the
radio relaying the voices of the astronauts. The voices were relayed
to earth through the more powerful transmitter of the orbiting Apollo,
but as the spaceship circled the moon the voices of the men on the
surface were lost. Then they returned once more as the ship came
over their horizon.
For five orbits their voices came and went as they described their
sensations and exulted in the first minutes of their achievement.
Then, on the sixth orbit, there were no voices. There was only the
sudden, shrill cry of the third crewman, Don Anderson, who manned
the orbiting ship.
"Allan! Bill! Apollo to capsule: Come in, please. Bill—where are you—
I can't even see your capsule. I'm passing right over the spot. Apollo
to Base: I can't locate the capsule through the telescope. It looks like
a big crevasse right where the capsule was, but it wasn't there before.
Allan—Bill—Come in! Come in!"
Jim heard the sudden sob that shook Mary. He put his arm about her
shoulders and led her into the house.
Don Anderson remained in lunar orbit for two more days. Then he
was ordered home. He landed safely.
There were expressions of national sorrow over the unexplained loss
of the two astronauts, but plans were renewed for the next voyage.
The President said that sacrifices must be expected if this great goal
were to be achieved, and that it would be a betrayal of those who had
already given their lives if the work were to stop now.
In Canada that winter, Jim was sure the wolves howled on cold,
moonlit nights more than ever before. And something new was
happening to the moon. The silver light was taking on a faint tint of
orange. The radio told of a very learned report by some astronomer
who spoke obscurely of changes in albedo and percentages of
atmospheric dust and angstroms of sunlight. Any fool could see the
moon was changing color.
Jim listened to the wolves howling in the forest, and he thought of
Cramer's Pond when he was a boy, and of a machine tumbling into a
crevasse where a terrible darkness lay, and he wondered how long it
would be.
THE END
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STAY OFF THE
MOON! ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.