Explaining Self‐Interested Behavior of Public‐Spirited Policy Makers

Abstract

Public choice theory (PCT) has had a powerful influence on political science and, to a lesser extent, public administration. Based on the premise that public officials are rational maximizers of their own utility, PCT has a quite successful record of correctly predicting governmental decisions and policies. This success is puzzling in light of behavioral findings showing that officials do not necessarily seek to maximize their own utility. Drawing on recent advances in behavioral ethics, this article offers a new behavioral foundation for PCT ' s predictions by delineating the psychological processes that lead well-intentioned people to violate moral and social norms. It reviews the relevant findings of behavioral ethics, analyzes their theoretical and policy implications for officials ' decision making, and sets an agenda for future research.

Conflicts of Interest Arising from Simultaneous Service by Editors of Competing Journals or Publishers

“…In this opinion piece, several arguments pertaining to editors, their positions, and their responsibilities, are made: (1) given their position as gatekeepers of truth and the validity and integrity of academic information, editors have many responsibilities, primarily toward authors, journals, publishers, their academic community and finally the public; (2) for transparency, editors should declare any and all COIs on journals' editorial board pages and on their CVs; (3) serving on CJPs may constitute a professional and potentially financial COI; therefore, to remove any doubt, to be ethically safe and to reflect the fullest possible openness and transparency, such positions on CJPs should be declared in editor profiles on the editorial board of a journal's webpage and on an editor's CV; (4) even if COIs do not exist, the lack of COIs should be declared; and (5) wider debate is needed within the academic community to determine whether the failure of editors to declare COIs should be considered a form of misconduct. Given that editors are traditionally considered as the pinnacle of leadership in the publishing ecosystem with an established ethical core [61], and are, based on their leadership position alone, perceived as "good people" [62] and are also, to some extent, a type of public policy maker [63] since they establish and/or impose publishing policy for authors, the assessment of hidden COIs as a possible form of misconduct needs more debate and resolution. However, since "truth" cannot, and should not, be determined by blind trust alone, the existence or absence of COIs needs to be clearly indicated on editorial boards, as COI statements for each editor, including their position as editors of CJPs.…”

Ethical Risks in Public-Private Partnerships: The Case of Lahore Waste Management Company

“…Similarly, with reference to NPM, Th olen (2011) has labeled managerialism pursued individuals as "homo economicus" which means that humans act as agents who are full of self-interests and focus on a means-ends approach by compromising ethical values. As far as PPPs are concerned, they oft en get challenged due to high centralized power to the state as public offi cials may aff ect the whole operation through self-interest mechanisms (Zamir & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2018). Bishop (2007) discussed political liberalism as a further extension of the context of cultural ideals and linked this liberalism concept with Western culture.…”

Beyond Institutional Collective Action: Why and When Do Metropolitan Governments Collaborate?

“…In performing organizational activities, deciding is assumed to be equal to choosing. However, other theoretical standpoints challenge this assumption as well as the absolute rationality of organizations (see, for instance, Ahrne and Brunsson 2010; Zamir and Sulitzeanu-Kenan 2017).…”