M acro -E thics in the Code of the Pan -Generalist
American Society for Public Administration[1]
James H. Svara
Arizona State University
An important part of ASPA’s emergence as a professional association for public administrators has been the development of a code of ethics. Building on the principles of 1981 and the code of 1984, the revised code of 1994 has been the basis of ASPA’s approach to ethics. There is still a question, however, about whether ASPA’s code matches the normative challenges of the field it purports to cover. The chief shortcoming of the ASPA code is the weakness of macro-ethical standards, i.e., the values that define the responsibilities of professionals to society. A possible revised version is offered to illustrate how the code could be broadened. With a comprehensive statement of the expectations that apply to all persons who seek to promote the public interest and serve the public in governmental and non-governmental organizations, the ASPA code could complement the narrower codes of other more specialized associations of public officials.
Public administration has long struggled to define itself as a profession. The issue is complicated by the numerous professional groups that make up the field (Arnold and Plant, 1994). This raises the question whether public administration and the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) is a profession or a field of diverse professionals—a holding company so to speak for the professionals in government identified by Frederick Mosher (1968)—, but not a profession itself. ASPA as an association of public officials is unusual—even unique—in its efforts to (a) connect its practitioner and academic members across (b) levels of government, (c) functional specializations, (d) strata in the organizational hierarchy, and (e) sectors.
The position of ethics in ASPA has been intermixed with the question of the association’s and the field’s professional status. Without a code of ethics, it lacked an essential feature of recognized or aspiring professions. It is not clear, however, whether the code that was developed in 1984 and modified ten years later resolves or complicates ASPA’s status as a profession. Does the existing code clearly express what kind of profession public administration is in the complex arena of public affairs? The position taken in a recent paper on the nature of public professionalism and the role of ASPA (Svara and Terry 2009), and advanced here, is that the code does not match the association’s aspiration to be the core organization for public professions. Both the association and the code need to be taken to a “higher” level, and they must move together.
Developing the ASPA code
ASPA’s standing as a professional association was hampered for an extended period by its lack of a code of ethics. That gap was closed in 1984 when ASPA adopted a code of ethics. There is still a question, however, about whether ASPA’s code matches the normative challenges of the field it purports to cover. There was not resounding support for the quality of the original code, which stressed bureaucratic rather than professional values (Bowman 2000). Chandler (1982) considered a code proposed by Professional Standards and Ethics Committee in 1981 to be broader, stronger, and clearer than the Principles adopted by the ASPA National Council later in that year. The principles became the basis for the code that was adopted in 1984. Cooper (1987, 327) characterized it as “a conglomeration of prescribed virtues and modes of conduct” which though useful as individual points failed to provide “a coherent ethical identity for public administration.” To Pugh (1991, 21), it “represents a skein of behavioral guideposts” limited by “moral ambivalence and ambiguity.” It still reflected the limited conception of administration from the dichotomy model. Later, Cooper (1994, 16) would describe the code as “a less than excellent document,” but one that had prompted discussion and debate among ASPA members about ethics and helped to legitimize ethics as a significant field of study. The code was slow to take hold among administrators (Bowman 1990), and there was little evidence that it was used to guide behavior (Gortner 1991, 143).
The code was revised in 1994 with increased emphasis on professional values, and both awareness and utilization increased. The drafters sought to incorporate as much as the 1985 version as possible and shorten it to a one-page document. To make the code more useful to members, the content was organized around five major canons or principles derived from what the committee saw as the five major sources of ethics in the public sector: notions of the public interest, law and formal ethics codes, personal integrity, organizational dynamics, and professionalism (Van Wart, 1996). The code was approved in 1994 and has been the basis of ASPA’s approach to ethics since that time. A review of the code starting in 2001 identified some possible changes that would have broadened the scope of the code somewhat (Van Wart 2003). At the end of the review, no changes were made.[1]
A major criticism of codes of ethics is that they are too narrow and negative (Plant 1994) and reflect a low road approach to ethics emphasizing what one should not do rather than the positive actions that reflect a high level of ethical commitment (Rohr 1989). Cooper (1987, 322) stressed the importance of organizing a code around achieving the “internal goods” for a profession or practice. They are the positive purposes that a practice is organized to advance, and they are achieved by striving to meet standards of excellence associated with these goods.
A related criticism of codes of ethics in general is that they focus on micro- rather than macro-ethics. The latter define the “social responsibilities of professionals as a group” and what they should do to “influence social policy” (Ladd 1980, 156). One could argue that all codes should consider such overriding values. In the case of public administration, the need for macro-ethics is especially important. ASPA is the only organization that is broad enough to consider and set ethical standards for the field as a whole. Other specialized groups of public administrators operate within an implicit normative framework that has not been articulated. The ethics of professionals that serve citizens and advance the public interest can be set by ASPA as the encompassing pan-generalist organization in public affairs. It is not clear, however, what such a code of ethics would look like and how would it compare with the existing code.
The chief shortcoming of the ASPA code is the weakness of macro-ethical standards. The code is not narrow with many “don’t” statements like the 1958 Code of Ethics for Government Service (Svara 2007). But if it does not take the low road, it is largely a middle road approach that is not broad enough to cover all the important values of the field nor high enough to fully inspire. It is fairly comprehensive (with five sections that enunciate principles and 32 specific tenets stated as commitments), but it overlooks some macro issues and restricts the scope of others. Other associations—particularly the American Institute of Certified Planners and the National Association of Social Workers offer examples of codes that include extensive statements of macro-ethical responsibilities.
Illustration of Expanded Code for ASPA
I am mindful of Cooper’s (1987, 327) view that ethics standards should not reflect the perspective or preferences of one person. The approach presented here is meant to illustrate how the shortcomings identified earlier might be addressed in a revised code. Thus, the purpose is to demonstrate the possibility of an alternative to the current code of ethics rather than to propose one.
Compared to the current code that consists of 32 tenets stated as commitments, the expanded version contains 40. Given the elimination or combination of some current commitments, the expanded version contains 16 new tenets and revises or expands 11 existing statements. Over three fifths of the wording is new or revised. A key drawback of the expanded version is its length; it is twice as long as the current version. The full statement appears in the appendix.
ASPA and Other Associations of Public Officials
ASPA can be seen as a uniquely broad-ranging and inclusive association. It has the potential of articulating what it means to be a public professional and what expectations accompany this role. As Svara (2009, 1037) argues,
public professionalism is the overarching knowledge, values, and standards of practice that apply to serving society and advancing the public interest and to securing sound, democratic governance. The knowledge, values, and standards are shaped by and apply to the professionals of governance and are relevant to the other professionals in government that are less likely to see the big public picture from their more specialized organizational vantage point.
This perspective has two important implications. First, the ASPA code of ethics should be the highest and broadest statement of the normative commitments of the field. I have suggested an approach that starts moving in that direction. Second, ASPA members should recognize and support the ethics codes of other professional associations, as noted in the final tenet, and seek to identify how its values and principles can be related to those of other associations. A cursory examination of other codes suggests that there is a serious need to view the ASPA standards as an overarching code for all public professionals. The codes examined are from AICP, NASW—both of which are exemplary in their macro-ethical statements but have limitations--, International City/County Management Association, International Public Management Association for Human Resources, and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics from the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
It is appropriate that the ethics standards of specialized associations should focus on the special concerns of the level of government or the functional area the association is responsible for. But what about the general concerns or broad values that are not included in specialized codes? The ASPA code could provide guidance about these issues. The ethical challenges in public service should not be left exclusively to the fragmented attention and separate resolution by many specialized associations. ASPA could offer ethics guides that examine the universal and specific expectations of particular groups of public professionals. ASPA could offer assistance to groups of professionals such as policy analysts that do not have a specialized code.
In sum, the ASPA code could look somewhat different and serve broader purposes than does the current version. It could be more fully a macro-ethical statement of the social purposes of public administration and a comprehensive elaboration of the values that guide the work of public professionals. For the ASPA code to serve as the framework for other codes, there will need to be explicit attention to the ways that its ethical standards relate to the standards for specialized association and discussion of how these standards can help to guide specialized professionals in handling major ethical issues. The ASPA code would not supersede a specialized code but it would provide a context for it. Perhaps some day, the specialized associations will promote their own codes, but refer as well to the ASPA code to help their members understand the full scope of responsibilities they have as public servants as well as their specific responsibilities as city managers, policy analysts, social workers, police chiefs, or other categories of public service professionals. This would be an important step toward Mosher’s (1938, 333) dream of achieving a shared professional consciousness that “must be present in the minds of the great body of civil servants before a worthy profession can emerge.”
Appendix.
Illustration of a n Expanded Code of Ethics for ASPA
[new or revised wording in italics]
The American Society for Public Administration is dedicated to advancing the science, processes, and art of public administration and improving the performance of individuals and institutions that serve the public in a democratic society. The Society affirms its commitment to develop the spirit of professionalism with its membership and with members of other associations of public officials by increasing awareness and understanding of key ethical principles that should guide all those who serve the public and shape the quality of public life in their community, their country, and the world. To this end, we, the members of the Society, commit ourselves to the following principles and practices :
I. Advance the Public Interest. Seek to promote the long-term interest of the public as a whole. ASPA members are committed to:
1. Make recommendations for policy that address the existing conditions and future needs and advance the public interest for current residents and future generations.
2. Act with beneficence and s eek to create the greatest good for all individuals and groups in society.
3. Develop sound laws and policies and improve laws and policies that are counterproductive or obsolete.
4. Exercise discretionary authority to promote the public interest.
5. Subordinate personal interests and institutional loyalties to the public good.
6. Be prepared to make recommendations and decisions that may not be popular or preferred by superiors.
II. Respect the Constitution and Law. Respect, support, and study governmental constitutions and laws that define the legal obligations of public officials and public agencies. ASPA members are committed to: