Conflict of Interest and Public Life

Abstract

This volume features a distinguished, international group of scholars and practitioners who provide a comparative account of ethics regulations across four Western democracies: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Italy. They situate conflict-of-interest regulations within a broader discourse involving democratic theory; identify the structural, political, economic, and cultural factors that have contributed to the development of these regulations over time; and assess the extent to which these efforts have succeeded or failed across and within different branches and systems of government. Collectively, they provide an invaluable survey of the development, function, and impact of conflict-of-interest regimes in public life.

Conflict of Interest: An Epidemic Dilemma Within the South African Public Procurement System

“…Therefore, it is only when conflicts of interest are not managed adequately or are left unaddressed that they result in corruption. Trostand and Gash (2008) posits that because of conflict of interest, procurement officials or any officials involved in the value chain of public procurement system tend to neglect their public interest in favour of their private interest by making use of their positions for personal gain and engage in corrupt activities such as extortion, bribery and fraud to achieve their goals. Reed ( 2008) is of the view that in reality, conflict of interest is properly understood as a situation, not an action, and it is clear that a public official may find him or herself in a conflict of interest situation without actually behaving corruptly.…”

How will the Legal Battle End in the Public Job : Sight of Jordan Issue

“…The financial interest of the public servant is the most worrying legislator with a year of civil service legislation, so he takes several precautions and procedures to separate the public and private interests, and conflict of interest laws usually require the public servant to disclose his interests (OECD, 2019), and declaring a state of conflict of interest is the responsibility of the employee Personal year, which results in the disqualification of administrative decisionmaking, but provided that there are negative effects on the integrity, objectivity and independence of administrative work, so it is expected according to the natural course of things (Trost & Gash, 2008).…”

“…As for the partial ban, it is to prevent a public servant from engaging in any activity related to the work of his administrative job, whether for payment or not (41). For example, Canada prevented ministers of the crown, ministers of states, or members of Parliament from contracting with any of the public sector institutions (Trost & Gash, 2008). Some countries have prohibited the employee from engaging in certain commercial activities or the necessity of obtaining permission before practicing them.…”

“…In the American Ethics Reform Act 1989, very strict rules were established for these expressive activities, known as honoraria bans, which forbid a public official from accepting any honorary job (usually without pay) that requires representing a particular party and making speeches for this. Entity A is writing articles or other activities, and although this law represents a flagrant violation of the public servant's right of expression, the American legislator preferred not to harm public confidence, at the expense of the constitutional rights of the public servant, despite the fact that the legislation of this restriction was objected and criticized severely by some (Trost & Gash, 2008).…”