ETHICS-04 (Mr.

Brijendra Singh)

STATUS OF ETHICS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public Administration is a custodian of public resources and trust. Since it is conceptualized to

promote public welfare on a permanent basis, ethical considerations should be a high priority for
administrators. Unfortunately, ethics are often disregarded by administration and their importance
realized only after there has been a serious ethical lapse. The basic concerns are:

i) Practicality is considered antithetical to morality.

ii) Short-term benefits take precedence over long-term impact.
iii) Economics takes precedence over ethics.
iv) Efficiency, outputs & proficiency take precedence over effectiveness, outcomes &
integrity.
v) Rights & entitlements take precedence over responsibilities and duties.

Thus, the status of ethics in an administrative system can be assessed through its ability to establish a
balance between three important parameters:

1. The balance between Objectivity and Subjectivity:

Each decision involves a combination of objective and subjective elements. Objective criteria are
quantitative and measurable in nature, such as economic criteria, laws and rules, availability of time
etc. Subjective criteria are qualitative in nature and depend upon personal judgement, such as values,
discretionary powers, the interpretation of circumstances, etc.

Objectivity ensures standardisation but as objective criteria are increased, the system becomes
rigid. Flexibility can be ensured by providing officers with discretionary powers but this creates
the risk of misuse of authority. This reinforces the importance of officers with a strong and
virtuous value system and a genuine desire to serve the public.

2. The balance between Means & Ends:

Each decision involves value premises and factual premises. With regard to public
administration, both premises are provided by the public as well as by administration.

Since the people are the ultimate sovereign, the ends/objectives of a decision are determined by
the value premises of the public. Since administration has more expertise, the means/mechanisms
to achieve the objectives are determined according to the facts provided by administration. If
administrative officers cannot understand and address (promote or suppress) public values, the
decision is unlikely to create meaningful welfare.

To accurately understand public values, officers must have a strong and virtuous value system
themselves. Unfortunately, administrators often adopt a myopic attitude that considers either only
the facts or only the values. The former situation is termed means-ends reversal, while the latter
refers to populist and impractical decisions.
3. The balance between Personal & Collective Welfare:
Each decision not only affects personal welfare but also has an impact on collective welfare. This
makes it important for a person to adopt a selfless and caring attitude, where he focuses not just
on his rights but also his duties. Ideally, duty should come before self.

Within administration, the system usually facilitates the realisation of personal aspirations
alongwith the fulfilment of professional duties. In situations where a perfect alignment is not
possible, it is expected that an officer places his professional responsibilities at first priority. The
critical challenges emerge in situations which have increased autonomy and authority or where
temptations and hardships become visibly compelling.

PROBLEMS OF ETHICS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ethical concerns are often disregarded by administration. However, the responsibility for such lapses
does not lie only with administrative officers but also with the agencies that influence their
perceptions and actions.

As such, the problems of ethics in public administration include:

1. A lack of ethical literacy, which refers to an inability to fully understand the complex ethical
issues involved in a situation and results in a mechanical, rule-bound approach to problem
solving. This is especially problematic in situations where officers do not have a good
understanding of factors that influence the environment, such as the local history, culture,
language, customs etc.
2. Societal pressures, which refer to the irrational and unreasonable demands made upon officers
by their families, peers and even members of the public at large. This is further compounded by
the poor and narrow value system displayed by society, as evident from growing prejudices,
intolerance, stereotyping etc.
3. While political intervention helps an officer determine public needs more judiciously,
political interference refers to the creation of circumstances where, despite wanting to act in a
different manner, an officer is compelled to ratify a poor decision. Such political interference is
hard to resist because of subjectivity in performance appraisals and a lack of security of tenure.
Thus, it pressurises officers to become inclined towards even inappropriate orders. Compliant
officers enjoy political patronage and privileges while honest officers suffer feelings of
helplessness and a lack of purpose.
4. Constant scrutiny on administrative actions, through increased public participation,
information sharing and the introduction of ICT platforms, makes many officers reluctant to
innovate or take risks. This is so because risk-taking is inherently failure prone and subject to
criticism and adverse professional consequences. Such tendencies are further strengthened by
the principle of seniority in determining career progression as well as the absence of adequate
recognition/rewards for risk-taking behaviour.
5. The discretionary powers of administrators place them in the unique position where they
frame the rules to govern themselves. They not only formulate but also implement and, in some
cases, even adjudicate upon policies. This makes it difficult to enforce accountability and
necessitates self-regulation.
6. A lack of organised public opinion against administrative deficiencies makes it difficult to
correct and prevent official misconduct. This is further aggravated by a lack of awareness
 among the people about their entitlements and the absence of institutionalized grievance
redressal mechanisms.

In the Indian context, administrative values have changed significantly over the last few decades.
Post-independence, administrators had an almost paternalistic attitude towards the public. In contrast,
todays administration is characterised by a growing sense of insecurity, reinforced by the belief of
each man for himself. Apart from the increasing complexities and expectations from an
administrative office, the reasons for the decline in public service values are:

1. The public office has acquired a feudal character and is viewed as a personal space for fulfilling
private agendas. A genuine desire to serve the public is often replaced by an overpowering
ambition for self-advancement. This leads to a culture of opportunism, with officers displaying
an unlimited capacity for self-abasement in expectation of political patronage.
2. Contact with the public and the field administration has become very limited and has
increasingly shifted towards the political class. The culture of field trips and touring has been
replaced by conferences and committees. This has made the civil servant vulnerable and even
dependant on the politician, who is often better informed.
3. The Constitutional and institutional securities that are intended to protect honest officers are
often misused to give undue immunity to dishonest officers. Further, officers misinterpret the
principle of seniority and assume that experience should supersede merit.