Ethics for Bureaucrats

Rohr, John A.; Storing, Herbert J.

doi:10.1201/9780203756539

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This puts administrators in a situation where they decide on how to resolve conflicts in light of maintaining a constitutional structure that is rooted in a balance of power. As a result, administrators are part of the governing elite who seek to ensure the regime's aim and character (Rohr, 1984(Rohr, , 1989. The way to accomplish this is to recognize that administrators must use prudence, or the ability to possess balance and judgment, in handling concrete problems in a broader general context.…”

Section: Balanced Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Balance Wheel Reconsidered: Addressing Constitutional Principle Disputes in Practice

Newswander

2015

Administrative Theory & Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In handling contingencies that do not yield to categorical answers, Aristotle argues, deliberation grounded in a general purpose becomes necessary so that reason can be exercised in a way that effectively and correctly resolves particular problems. This article explores how Aristotelian prudence adjusted to constitutional conditions can serve as a normative guide not only in resolving ethical dilemmas but in molding administrative judgment. This modified consideration of Aristotelian thinking requires administrators to rely on regime values and principles as aims in making choices that are often in direct conflict with those of other parties. The deliberation of what these values and principles mean in practice requires that administrators have a sense of both the general and the particular. The ability to tap into these considerations defines a balanced administrator who is able to prudently make quality choices.

show abstract

Section: Balanced Judgmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Balance Wheel Reconsidered: Addressing Constitutional Principle Disputes in Practice

Newswander

2015

Administrative Theory & Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would include values clearly embodied in law and formal administrative mission statements, strategic plans, and other documents, as well as those embedded in organizational culture, decision making, task environments, contextual contingencies, and job behavior (see, among others, Lipsky, 1980;Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003;Rainey, 2014;Seidman, 1970). An empirical base is also necessary for more general and amorphous regime values and "public values" (Baehler, Liu, & Rosenbloom, 2014;Bozeman, 2007;Rohr, 1978). In addition, as Dahl and Stillman note, normative discussions of values should be explicit regarding their consequentialist and/or nonconsequentialist bases.…”

Section: Conceptually Weak Normative Pillars and Decontextualized Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hollowing of American Public Administration

Durant

Rosenbloom

2016

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectively linking theory to practice has long been perceived as a challenging objective of the field of public administration, despite important research advances in the field. 1 Indeed, this conundrum contributed to the establishment of the American Society for Public Administration in 1939 (Lee, 2015). Ever since, the question of why public administration seems unable to develop a more substantial and satisfactory theoretical, explanatory, and practical body of knowledge runs through much of the field's literature (Dubnick, 1999). Diverse "answers," all partial at best, have been offered. Perhaps expectations have been inappropriate for a complex field (Rutgers, 2010). Public administration is management, politics and policy, law, government, governance, "orthodox," "reinvented," hierarchical, collaborative, bureaucratic, post-bureaucratic, new public management (NPM), post-NPM, art, science, profession, craft, service, regulation, and undoubtedly much else. It also embraces a mix of normative values, impeding theory-building on empirical grounds and practical advice. As James Q. Wilson observed in 1967, these value premises include accountability (control), equity (procedural fairness), efficiency, responsiveness, and fiscal integrity. More recently, in 2015, Naomi Aoki's encapsulation of the "so-called Good Governance Model" adds to these values representativeness, transparency, and respect for the rule of law. Even broader inventories of "public values" are provided by Torben Jørgensen and Barry Bozeman (2007) and Zeger van der Wal, Tina Nabatchi, and Gjalt de Graaf (2015). However, not only do many public administrative values and their conceptual referents lack sufficient clarity for standard operationalization as sought by Herbert Simon (1946, 1947b), they are potentially incompatible with one another (as explained by the abovementioned authors) and must be balanced or traded-off together in practice. As Robert Dahl (1947) observed, they also are normative and context dependent. 2 Alternatively, others argue that the "big questions" in public administration are so big that the field's collective knowledge base is too limited (Behn, 1995; Kirlin, 1996). Still others argue that, regardless of the size of the questions asked, the problem lies in the field's valorization of the scientific method (Adams, 1992; Luton, 2007). They contend that a methodology grounded in the natural sciences is not appropriate for explaining and predicting complex individual and organizational behaviors. These critics also find the idea of "independent" variables misguided in a world of practice where administrative dynamics are largely multi-causal and interdependent rather than uni-causal. Relatedly, they view the fact-value dichotomy (Simon, 1947a)

show abstract

“…Για τον J. Α. Rohr (1989) η έλλειψη συστήματος ελέγχου στη γραφειοκρατική διοί κηση είναι αναγκαίο να αντικαθίσταται από την ηθική των γραφειοκρατών που οφείλει να ορίζεται στη βάση των αξιών των πολιτών τους οποίονς «υπηρετούν» οι παραπάνω γραφειοκράτες (σ. 5).…”

Section: ο ρολος του φυλου στη διαμορφωση των αξιακων εργασιακων προτunclassified

Στατιστικη Αναλυση Των Τασεων Διαμορφωσης Αξιακων Προτυπων Της Εμμισθης Εργασιας Στο Δημοσιο Τομεα Και Ο Ρολος Της Διαστασης Του Φυλου

Konstantopoulos¹,

Ζήμερας²,

Παπαλεξανδρής³

2016

Grsr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethics for Bureaucrats

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

The Balance Wheel Reconsidered: Addressing Constitutional Principle Disputes in Practice

The Balance Wheel Reconsidered: Addressing Constitutional Principle Disputes in Practice

The Hollowing of American Public Administration

Στατιστικη Αναλυση Των Τασεων Διαμορφωσης Αξιακων Προτυπων Της Εμμισθης Εργασιας Στο Δημοσιο Τομεα Και Ο Ρολος Της Διαστασης Του Φυλου

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About