THE ETHIC OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROFESSIONALISM

THE ETHIC OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROFESSIONALISM

INTRODUCTION

            The public sector is a constantly changing environment in where leadership, environmental influences, and socio-political developments are factors that effect such transformations. Concerns of what constitute administrative behaviour revolve primarily around corruption, the administrative role in the policy-making process, the conflicting obligations of administrators, and with such other dimensions of administrative activity (1988). The significance of communicating ethics and the values that define and underpin the public service cannot be overemphasized. As stated by , it is important for public servants to be provided a common frame of reference regarding the principles and standards to be applied to develop an appreciation of the ethical issues involved in effective and efficient public service delivery (2005), thus the presence of issues of public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators.

Over the recent years, there has been an increase in the number of regulatory bodies involved in all aspects of the public services, aims among which are to evaluate and hold accountable the people currently in office. This paper attempts to ascertain if the issues have indeed damaged the ethicality of public service and professionalism through a discussion of the known theories, research and other relevant literature on the themes. It also tries to determine if those tools are necessary for maximizing efficiency and cost effectiveness in the public sector. The issue was deemed important because of the seeming wave of unethical conduct and unprofessional behaviour displayed by most public servants in position, which proves detrimental, not only to public trust, but on the more solid issue of inappropriate allocation of public resources and inefficient public service delivery. Lastly, the matter on public service and professionalism was chosen as the centre of discussion to raise public awareness of the issue and possibly promote better public service delivery and improved public sector professionalism.

CONCEPTS

As with any other paper, there is a need to initially discuss the primary concepts that will be involved in the later parts of this paper’s examination. The Nolan Committee (now the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Nolan Committee is an independent committee, set up in response to concerns that conduct by some politicians was unethical) identified accountability as one of the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’, where it was stated that holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office (1995:15). Public accountability in this study’s context means being responsible for actions committed the practice public service that would affect, either directly or indirectly, the general public. Being responsible in public accountability is not by merely taking the blame but also surrendering oneself to public investigation when the need for it arises. Audits can take the form of a financial statements audit or performance audit. It is in the latter form that this paper is focused. commented that auditing in the public sector are heavily influenced by the administrative framework and cultural environment that are in place (1999). Therefore it must be noted that the nature of performance auditing would depend on the particular environment where it is applied. Performance audit, for this paper’s purposes means an independent evaluation of the economy and efficiency of operations of the person being audited, and the effectiveness of programs in the public sector (1990;1999; 1996). The auditing is usually done through oversight bodies in most jurisdictions, as evidenced in various performance auditing studies, although there are variances as to how they are called in the respective places where they are operating (1998;  1996). For instance, in Hong Kong, there is the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) whose strategy is to investigate, prevent and educate in order to curb corruption in the country. There is also the Office of the Ombudsman whose duty is to ensure that Hong Kong is served by a fair and efficient public administration which is committed to accountability, openness and quality of service. Its mission is to redress grievances and address issues arising from maladministration in the public sector and to bring about improvements in the quality and standard of and promote fairness in public administration through independent, objective and impartial investigations (  2004:).

            The performance-based approach to measuring organizational success have seen its beginnings in the latter part of the last century, when governments started to use performance indicators to measure their economy, effectiveness and efficiency. There is, however, a wealth of interest on performance indicators in different fields (1986). Aside from national and local politicians, managers (at several different levels), professionals, consumers, and even the workforce have put to use such performance indicators (1995). Performance-based indicators comprise of monitoring activities inside an agency, evaluating the quality of the goods and services it generates, critical evaluation of interactions with various government and non-government entities outside the agency. As stated by  ‘With the growing demand for government to be more responsive, accountable, and frugal with resources, performance measurement is in the limelight’ (1996:1). There is a need to define ethics in the context of public service and professionalism, as it is the premise for which this discussion revolves in.  noted that ethics involves the process of and search for moral standards that aid us in identifying and clarifying right and wrong actions (1992). Despite the clear-cut definition of what ethics is about, numerous situations which arise in the public sector environment do not fit neatly within defined guidelines so that the application of ethical norms involves consideration and deliberate thought prior to action. Mark Huddleston summarily said, ‘not only can we observe wide differences in patterns of administrative ethics between [sic] nations, but even within single systems it is found that ethical patterns may shift over time’ (1981). Therefore, the ideal applications of ethical norms preclude relativism, which says that there are no universal principles or rules to guide administrative action (1998:).  agreed that ethics in public administration traditionally has been divided into two schools, the normative and the structural, wherein the normative perspective often draws upon organizational development, examines how ethical values are inculcated and put into operation in organizations while the structural approach probes formal-legal arrangements, primarily regulatory and legal prescriptions and prohibitions through which governments seek to channel and control administrators’ behaviour (1996). The exercise of ethics related to the normative-structural distinction addresses such ethical issues as independence, objectivity, integrity and professional competence.

ETHICAL ISSUES IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROFESSIONALISM

            Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in the attention that public service ethics and unethical behaviour in the public sector receive. This can be rooted from the fact that the evolution of public administration has carried out its businesses in a progressively more open visibility in the advent of various media. And although the commitment to and the concern for ethics in the public sector have gone through ebbs and flows, there are enduring themes in public management namely: (1) citizenship, ethics, and democracy; (2) virtue, ethics, and the public interest; (3) ethics and the founding fathers’ thoughts; and (4) ethics and administration (1998:). It is in theme of public interest that the issues of public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators surfaced in the recent years. Ethical issues to be discussed in this section in relation to the three include independence, objectivity, integrity and professional competence.

            The issue of being independent, meaning being able to think on one’s own without having to ask other’s opinion, have been the focus of snide comments from people who have observed that most public servants do not possess independent thinking, but instead rely on the popular thinking thus ending up in reciting back the opinions of others. The close scrutiny of citizens brought about by the introduction of a host of other media have subjected the public service sector to criticism, allowing for opinions to stream through the society and bringing about the need for performance-based approaches to evaluation. Independence of thinking became one of the indicators with which to determine if the public servant is deserving of the position held, and the rightness or wrongness of having such independent thought, through such performance-based evaluations, can now be analysed.

            Objectivity, or being able to develop impartial judgments with respect to decision-making, has also been one of the ethical issues most discussed in the public service circle. This issue affects public service professionalism, because basically, the latter requires objectivity in the performance of actions, especially those involving public service per se. This implies that personal interests should not have room in the service of the general public, for one cannot simply be objective if there is an existing conflict of interest. Performance audit and public accountability play a role in this issue in that commonly, the actions of the people in public administration often benefit their own motives, thus the failure to become objective in making decisions. Through audit and accountability, the person can be made to submit explanations for such and such behaviour, and if deemed improper for the person’s position, the authority could then take measures to correct the wrong either by demotion, suspension, termination or other disciplinary acts.

The integrity of a public servant can come under pressure in a variety of ways, including but not limited to, the improper use of the delegated power and the chronic mankind disease: corruption. The larger issue of corruption has been remedied, or at the very least, given attention to by governments through adoption of structural arrangements such as ombudsman, inspector general, and special prosecutor and establishment of ethics offices and local ethics commissions designed to combat corruption and support incorruptible public administrators. The success of these methods of audit and accountability implemented by the governments have depended on the manner of carrying government policies out, as countries have shown a variety of reactions to such arrangements, both positively and negatively.

Professional competence of the public servants or their characteristic that underlie successful performance or behaviour at work has also been under scrutiny since the system has become more openly visible in the performance of public duties and responsibilities. Competency is linked to proper behaviour in the performance of tasks associated with public service and can be used to track performance through such means as using performance-based indicators. A list of the competencies included in the indicators can be compared to what is actually being carried out by the particular person in observation, thus providing for a basis with which to evaluate overall performance.

As an answer to the implied need of having a guideline that will serve as a basis for assessing standards of a fair and reasonable public administration, the Office of The Ombudsman in Hong Kong developed the Administrative Fairness Checklist which aimed to provide a general guidance on good administrative ethical practices with general headings as: (1) Sense of Responsibility and Accountability; (2) Making of Decisions; (3) Honesty and Integrity; (4) Professionalism and Public Interest; (5) Courtesy, Equality and Equity; (6) Loyalty and Dedication; and (7) Economy and Environmental Consciousness (1995 online). Additionally, a set of principles has been developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to help countries review the institutions, systems and mechanisms they have for promoting public service ethics namely: (1) Ethical standards for public service should be clear; (2) Ethical standards should be reflected in the legal framework; (3) Ethical guidance should be available to public servants; (4) Public servants should know their rights and obligations when exposing wrongdoing; (5) Political commitment to ethics should reinforce the ethical conduct of public servants; (6) The decision-making process should be transparent and open to scrutiny; (7) There should be clear guidelines for interaction between the public and private sectors; (8) Managers should demonstrate and promote ethical conduct; (9) Management policies, procedures and practices should promote ethical conduct; (10) Public service conditions and management of human resources should promote ethical conduct; (11) Adequate accountability mechanisms should be in place within the public service; and (12) Appropriate procedures and sanctions should exist to deal with misconduct (1998).

PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROFESSIONALISM UNDERMINED?

            As mentioned in the duration of the discussion, evaluation is one of the mechanisms for being accountable.  It can demonstrate how the job is done, either well and meeting objectives or poorly and failing to attain goals. The importance of an ethical and professional public service in the Hong Kong region cannot be denied, as there is evidence pointing out that a large amount of the nation’s budget goes to the public sector spending for the facilitation of providing essential public services. Hong Kong has been preoccupied with the public policy issue of corruption over the past decade. Successful achievements in curbing the country’s corruption have been recognized internationally, as claimed by  (2006). The corruption scandal involving , a Chief Superintendent of Police who was under investigation for suspected corruption and fled to the United Kingdom in June 1973 enraged the Hong Kong public, thus eliciting a series of campaigns for investigation and an increased awareness in the role that public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators play in prevention of such a problem. Two years after ICAC as founded and after in-depth investigation, Godber was extradited to Hong Kong and was imprisoned. This nationwide scandal has caused for the Hong Kong community to demand accountability and transparency of public servants. According to  (2006:online), in the 1980s when the Hong Kong economy started to become buoyant, there was a surge in illegal rebates, commercial fraud and finance-and-bank-related corruption and in the 1990s when there was a bubble economy, the over-heated construction market again led to scandals and corruption. A more recent occurrence, further relayed by described that on May 26 of last year,

‘the Court of Final Appeal confirmed the conviction of Sin Kam Wah, a senior superintendent of police, for misconduct in public office. He accepted sexual favors as a public officer in command of one of the departments of the police tasked to investigate vice offences. The first instance court judge stated, “ It is the clearest of cases of ‘keeping sweet’ corruption where advantages are given to someone in authority , without asking for a quid pro quo at the time the advantage is given, but building a store of goodwill to provide a basis for future corrupt demands”’ (2006).

Allegations of election corruption, conflict of interest; misuse of public funds and resources by politicians and officials, favoritism, cronyism and collusion between big business and government were frequently made to ICAC and referred to the Department of Justice for legal actions to be made in the event that the investigations prove that a serious misconduct was committed. The country is not unique in its experience. Nations all over the world has been plagued by the same problem, effects clearly visible but costs cannot be properly and exactly quantified, as there are obviously no public records for what goes on beyond the reach of public eyes. Furthermore, there is simply no quantification for the misuse of entrusted power for public gain and not all the signs of corruption come in monetary form, although experts use regression analyses and other empirical methods in an attempt to put figures on the problem’s costs. In view of this major and alarming issue on public service and professionalism came the need for the use of such tools as public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators in order for those concerned to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. The Hong Kong region has effectively taken measures to bring back public trust on the ethical and professional performance of public servants through the adoption of the tools, if not only to remedy the existing problems rooted from it, but also to prevent such future instances from happening. As gained from the wealth of literature on the subject discussed and from the actual Hong Kong experience, the existence of public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators have in no way undermined the ‘ethic’ of public service and professionalism. If anything, the three evaluation arrangements have only served to strengthen public service and professionalism through the exposition of proper and improper conduct in the carrying out of public duties and responsibilities.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, AUDITS & PERFORMANCE-BASED INDICATORS: EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE?

            Along with the ethical issues that the three tools attempts to address, there is also an existing debate on the tools per se, over whether they maximize public service and professionalism efficiency and if they are cost effective. The transparency required by public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators puts public servants in a position where they have to make the best out of the power given to them by the people to serve the latter’s optimal interests, otherwise, they would have to answer to the community and possibly be deprived of their position. These tools serve as the driver to maximize efficiency in carrying out the duties and responsibilities entailed with public service. Performance audit, for one, serves as an independent evaluation of the economy and efficiency of operations of the person being audited, and the effectiveness of programs in the public sector (1990; 1999; 1996). Governments also use performance indicators to measure their economy, effectiveness and efficiency. Legislative committees, parliamentary questions, judicial control and ombudsman are just some of the more common means for accountability in the public sector. Arguably, these bodies eat a certain amount of the public budget, adding to the already large public expenditure that the government allocates for in its annual budget. However, compared to the costs suffered when problems that roots from failure to hold public servants accountable for their actions and evaluate their performance arise, the cost to maintaining such bodies can now be viewed in a different light, as an investment to secure the community’s future against those who abuse the power vested to them by their positions, even saving the public sector a lot of money which would otherwise have been corrupted by public servants, used indiscriminately for purposes not beneficial to the general welfare and the like.

CONCLUSION

            It can be summarily said that public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators have not undermined the ethic of public service and professionalism, but instead served to further strengthen the system of extending service to the public sector through making all the facts, figures, mechanisms and processes transparent to the general public and open to he latter’s investigation and inquiry. These tools are necessary for maximizing efficiency and cost effectiveness of public service delivery and professionalism in that they provide the groundwork on which to implement an effective and efficient public sector.

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com