Chapter Forty
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND ETHICS
Carol W. Lewis and Bayard L. Catron
Public service is a public trust. If there is anything unique about public service, it derives
from this proposition. The idea goes back at least to Thomas Jefferson in this country,
and it can be traced to other historical periods and other cultures as well. For example, in
a seventeenth-century Chinese manual on local administration (Huang, 1984), the author,
himself a local administrator, describes the inauguration of a new magistrate, listing his
duties and emphasizing that “he should conduct public business with complete objectivity
and with no interference from his personal preferences” (p.146). Buddhism teaches a
similar lesson: “If an important minister of state neglects his duties, works for his own
profit or accepts bribes, it will cause a rapid decay of public morals” (Bukkyo Dendo
Kyokai, 1987, p.468).
For a public administrator, upholding the public trust means faithfully executing
one’s duties, as determined through the political process, in support of the public interest
or the collective good. The first provision in the federal Principles of Ethical Conduct for
Government Officers and Employees (Office of Government Ethics, 1992) (first issued by
executive order in 1989) is “Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place
loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain” (p.1).
Public administrators spend public dollars, and they wield the power of the state
in carrying out their role. Because of this, it is often said that they should be held to a
higher standard than others. Numerous opinion polls confirm that the public does hold
government officials to a higher standard (for example, see Bowman, 1990). They also
suggest, however, that in the minds of the public, government officials do not necessarily
meet that higher standard. Over many years, Gallup polls have asked respondents to rate
various professionals’ honesty and ethical standards (“Survey Data on Ethics,” 1993,
p.29). Only 14 percent of respondents rated state officeholders’ standards as high in
1993, compared to 11 percent in the initial poll in 1977. Comparable figures for local
officeholders were 19 percent in 1993 and 14 percent in 1977. A majority of respondents
ranked both state and local officials’ honesty and ethical standards as average in 1993.
Judging from our own experience in conducting a large number of ethics training
programs, public administrators agree by about three-to-one margin that they should be
held to a higher standard. This does not imply a different standard of morality but rather
a more scrupulous adherence to accepted standards. On the whole, administrators and
citizens share the same fundamental ethical values and perspectives (see Goodsell, 1994,
pp.103-131; Lewis, 1990), although their relative importance does vary.
In this chapter, we will discuss a number of values and principles that are
particularly important for public service. First, we clarify two basic approaches to
government ethics – legal compliance and the “aspirational” approach, which involves an
appeal to ethical principles. Next we discuss character ethics and some key virtues and
vices. Then we describe ethical decision making, which, we argue, makes use of all these
approaches but must ultimately depend on ethical reasoning and judgment. We conclude
with some practical suggestions for improving ethical conduct in public agencies.
Two Approaches: Compliance and Aspirational Ethics
From the founding of the republic, it has been accepted that we need both virtuous public
servants who aspire to the highest norms of conduct and also control mechanisms to
ensure accountability and the satisfaction of some minimally accepted standard
(Thompson, 1985). This dual goal is reflected in the founders’ reliance upon formal
government arrangements to supplement personal virtue. In a famous quotation, James
Madison (Federalist 51) noted, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary.
In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great
difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and
in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
The Compliance Approach and the Rule of Law
The compliance approach to ethics in government provides controls on the conduct of
public officials; thus, it serves as an important check on the substantial power they wield.
All federal officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and all public officials at
every level explicitly or implicitly agree to act in accordance with the law. To act
otherwise is widely regarded as an abuse of office (see Lewis, 1991, pp. 38-40). Thus,
legal compliance as an ethical obligation draws upon such virtues as truth-telling,
promise-keeping, and fidelity.
In the two decades since the Watergate scandal, and especially during the past
decade, there has been a veritable explosion of so-called ethics laws at every level of
government, creating more and more stringent conflict-of-interest, financial disclosure,
and other requirements applying to more and more public servants (Congressional
Research Service, 1994).
Conflict of interest, perhaps the most generic type of public corruption, is
typically proscribed by both professional and government codes and statues. According
to a survey conducted by the Council of State Governments (1993), many specific forms
of conflict of interest are proscribed by a majority of the states. Prohibitions against
bribery, using public position for personal benefit, and misuse of confidential government
information are among the most frequent. A majority of states limit outside income in
some way, and in 1990, limits were added to the federal Principles of Ethical Conduct as
well. Postemployment restrictions (limitations on what public officials can do after
leaving government work) are also becoming increasingly common.
One interesting provision that is appearing increasingly in ethics laws in the
admonition to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While this is somewhat amorphous
and difficult to codify, it is of great importance in maintaining (or restoring) public
confidence and trust in government. More than one-quarter of the one hundred largest
U.S. cities and more than dozen states in some way address the appearance of
impropriety, according to a survey we conducted in 1994. Attorneys general, ethics
commissions, and municipal attorneys were asked whether the appearance of impropriety
on the part of elected or appointed officials and other public employees was prohibited,
constrained, or in any way addressed by their jurisdictions. We found that such
provisions appear in local ordinances, prevailing state statutes, case law, executive
orders, regulations, civil service and agency rules, collective bargaining agreements, and
other sources. Also, officers of the court are enjoined by Canon II to meet an appearance
standard, as are members of many professional associations.
A visitor from another planet might reasonably suppose that all this legislative
activity has been in response to a virulent epidemic of public corruption, but is not the
case. It is not even clear that there has been a general decline in I cal behavior, although
this is a common perception reflected in public opinion veys. "The fact that higher
proportions of the public are now professing con about a perceived decline in ethical
standards hardly constitutes proof (that] ; dards are actually declining" (Ladd, 1993, p.
20). One possible indicator of J lic officials' conduct might be the number of corruption
indictments. Department of Justice statistics show federal corruption indictments of stat,
ficials increased from lOin 1970 to 71 in 1989, and indictments of local offi rose from 26
to 269 in the same period (Feigenbaum, Pockrass, Chapman, Lenzer, 1991, p. 4). These
are large percentage increases, even though the ac numbers of indictments are rather
small, but this increase could simply re more rigorous laws and/ or more vigorous
investigation and prosecution efj rather than a greater incidence of corruption.
Corresponding to the increase in ethics laws has been an increase in pr< sional ethics
codes, like the code of the American Society for Public Adminii tion (ASPA), adopted in
1985 and revised in 1994; the Government Fina Officers Association's code; and rule 1.1
of the American Bar Association's M, Rules of Professional Conduct (see Gorlin, 1990,
for a collection of professi, codes). The appeal to professionalism draws on selfawareness, honor, and r( tation. There has also been significant increase in ethics
coverage in professi< graduate programs in public administration (Catron and Denhardt,
1993). other aspect of professionalism, "self-policing" as a collegial responsibility am
members of a profession, is represented by the oversight and enforcement 1 cedures of
the International City/County Management Association, which had an ethics code since
1924.
The dramatic increase in the compliance approach to promoting ethic government is no
doubt partly due to a heightened moralism in the broader ture, a moralism paradoxically
linked to the debasement of ethics. In these culiar times, ethics seems to have lost much
of its original meaning. Politicians I the "ethics card" to gain advantage over a political
opponent, and the "blc game" has replaced meaningful discourse on policy.
Commentators wield ethics club to trounce an exposed hypocrite or transgressor, and
journalistic pr go to the 'Junkyard dog" for "protecting the public's right to know" (ofter
appealing to its most prurient interests). All of this-which in another time wc have been
considered improper conduct-contributes to public cynicism ; actually undermines ethics.
It is far from clear that increasingly stringent ethics laws make people m ethical, and in
fact, they may have a counterintuitive effect. For at least the reasons, external ethics
requirements subvert or at least distract from personal responsibility. First, the floor set
by law or rule may be accepted as the norm in- stead of the minimum standard; because
norms guide or govern conduct, this is a considerable defect. Second, the more rules there
are, the less one may be tempted
to think about positive ethical behavior and instead focus on compliance--on "how to stay
out of trouble," as the title of one government ethics guide puts it (Office of Government
Ethics, 1989). And third, the more burdensome and punitive an organization's rules, the
more members may work to minimize their adverse impact, thus increasing perverse
behaviors and outcomes. The U.S. Department of Defense's 1993 ethics directive runs
over 180 pages; the ethics business has be- come almost as cumbersome as the
procurement process.
The tendency in the compliance approach is to reduce ethics to law. When ethics
provisions are put into law, they are transformed from "ought" into "must," and discretion
and flexibility are reduced. The issue of the relationship between ethics and the law goes
back a long time (Hart, 1961 ). Sophocles' Antzgone is one classical statement of the
need to distinguish ethics from law. The Roman states- man Tacitus saw a connection:
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" (Annalj~ bk. 3, sec. 27). Chief
Justice Earl Warren's well-known formulation states that "in civilized life, law floats in a
sea of ethics. Each is in- dispensable to civilization. Without law, we should be at the
mercy of the least scrupulous. Without ethics, law could not exist" (Cook, 1963, p. 453).
The attempt to substitute rules for judgment undermines respect for ethical principles
(discussed in the next section) and denies what we believe is the central importance of
reason and reflection in ethical decision making (discussed in the second section below).
The Aspirational Approach and the Appeal to Principle
The approach here is to enunciate high-minded principles, affirm one's commitment to
them, and through example and leadership motivate others to adhere to them as well.
Nowhere in history is the aspirational approach to ethics illustrated more elegantly and
eloquently than in the oath of the Athenian city-state:
We will never bring disgrace to this our city by any act of dishonesty or
cowardice, nor ever desert our suffering cotnrades in the ranks;
We will ever strive for the ideals and sacred things of the city; both alone
and with many;
We will revere and obey the city's laws and do our best to incite to a like
respect and reverence those who are prone to annul or set them at naught; We will
unceasingly seek to quicken the sense of public duty;
That thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this city not only not less, but
greater, better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.
In our era, the notion of serving the public interest is often used in this
aspirational way. For example, the Josephson Institute's "Ethics Pledge for Elected
officials" identifies the duty to serve the public interest as placing "democratic principles
and public good over all other allegiances and considerations" and respecting "the will of
the citizenry." Democratic values as they have evolved in the American republic include
impartiality, justice, and due process to sustain a nation of law (Rohr, 1989; Rosenbloom,
1992); liberty, equity, and human dignity; accountability (and hence disclosure);
promoting a responsive process that is accessible to the citizens and citizenship rights and
obligations, such as informed participation and compassion.
Ethical principles and duties reflect behavioral goals and responsibilities and are
linked to our vision of a good society and worthy relationships. Ethical principles may be
procedural or substantive; they may center on sacrosanct ideas such as those embodied in
the Bill of Rights or focus foremost on results and outcomes. The four time-honored
fundamental ethical principles listed below are designed to guide behavior by
harmonizing duties and values without dictating the specific resolution (which is left to
the ethical decision maker's reason and reflection).
1. Reciprocity signals respect for human dignity and rights and avoiding doing harm; the
Golden Rule is a familiar example.
2. Reversibility (or empathy) calls for seeing oneself as subject or victim-in other words,
trading places or walking in someone else's shoes.
3. Utility (or net good results, however defined) urges concern for the number of people
affected by an action and for how deeply they are affected, in both the long and short
term.
4. Universality and consistency mean blocking arbitrary, haphazard, or unscrupulous
behavior in favor of impartiality, fairness, and predictability.
Character Ethics-Some Virtues and Vices
Ethical principles are often abstract and remote, and it is sometimes difficult to see how
they apply to particular situations. Another, ancient approach to ethics emphasizes the
role of character in determining right and wrong in many complex, idiosyncratic
situations. Here we merely summarize some virtues and vices that we believe are
particularly relevant to public service.
Public Service Virtues
Four virtues are discussed below-humility, moral imagination, courage, and
prudence.
Humility. Because administrators are temporary stewards of public authority, a certain
humility is a valuable trait for them-increasing their self-restraint-especially when human
fallibility is conceded. (On the concept of stewardship in public administration, see Kass,
1990; Morgan and Kass, 1991; and Frederick- son, 1994.) In its 1985 code, the ASPN.s
formulation of this virtue obliges members to "serve the public with respect, concern,
courtesy, and responsiveness, recognizing that service to the public is beyond service to
oneself" (American Society for Public Administration, 1985).
Although it is undesirable to compromise important ethical principles, it is
also undesirable to insist rigidly and exclusively upon one's own personal principles at
great cost to others. Public office should not be a bully pulpit for administrators to
promote only their own ethical viewpoints. The virtue of humility implies valuing
accommodation, inclusivity, and empathy and seeking reconciliation of contending
views. Note, however, that an administrator's ethical concerns do count (or else personal
integrity no longer does).
Moral Sensitivity and Imagination. Serious conflicts and dilemmas are endemic to
ethics problems; one function of the moral imagination is to generate creative resolutions
of these impasses. By redefining dilemmas as part of the process of mediating and
reconciling disputes, administrators can influence outcomes without taking exclusive
ownership of public affairs. The best solutions are not compromises but novel, fully
adequate responses to the situation. Instead of being satisfied with doing as little harm as
possible, an administrator with moral imagination seeks to satisfy as many ethical values
and principles as possible; thus, a creative response to complexity is especially valued.
A related function of the moral imagination is empathy, the capacity to experience
from a distance the effects of an action or decision on others, including future effects.
Moral sensitivity and empathy may be thought of as the conceptual equivalents in
philosophy and psychology of the public interest. As Adam Smith (1976) (who thought
of himself as a moral philosopher, not the father of capitalism) wrote in his Theory of
Moral Sentiments, empathy is the source of our capacity to act ethically. In A Theory of
Justice, John Rawls (1971) proposes that the ethical decision maker should don a "veil of
ignorance" in order to downplay self-interest and promote empathy.
The ability to generalize to a broad or universal and abstract plane is prized in
Kailt's "categorical imperative" and occupies the highest level of moral reasoning in
Lawrence Kohlberg's formulation ( 1981) of cognitive development. Universal
application of moral reasoning was a basic argument of the American suffrage
movement, formally inaugurated in Seneca Falls in 1848, at the f1rst Women's Rights
Convention held in the United States, by the signing of the Declaration if Sentiments,
which states, "He [man J has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a
different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which
exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man."
(For critical feminist perspectives, see Gilligan, 1982; Gilligan, Ward, Taylor, and
Bardige, 1988; Hirschmann, 1989; and Okin, 1989.)
Moral Courage. Often public officials are not in doubt about the right thing to do but are
reluctant to do it because it is not popular, convenient, or comfortable. Sometimes there
is a personal cost or risk associated with doing the right thing, and the temptation is very
great to rationalize inaction or avoid the situation al- together. But a commitment to
doing the right thing is rarely an intolerable bur- den; one's career is at stake less
frequently than one's integrity. Capability and risk are relevant to making a judgment in
such situations, and they usefully distinguish courage from rashness or heroism beyond
the call of duty.
Prudence. This is the basic practical virtue, even though today it usually connotes little
more than self-interested and expedient action, which might or might not be ethical
(Dobel, 1990). A traditional virtue familiar to the founders of the republic, prudence can
be traced to the ancient Greeks, for whom it embodied the wisdom to see the right thing',
coupled with the will to do it. Moral, democratic public leadership requires ethical
compromises, not compromise of ethics (Guy, 1990, p. 19). It values principled
judgment, responsively accommodates democratic inclusion over exclusive purity, and
proposes principled, creative resolutions when rival claims and true dilemmas threaten to
create personal or collective ethical gridlock or damaging exclusion.
Public Service Vices
Four ethical deficiencies in particular shadow public leaders today. Each has a distinct
character and a different sort of remedy.
Self-Righteousness. When power is combined with zealotry and self-righteousness
(what might be called the Ollie North syndrome), our constitutional democracy is
threatened. But the problem has a more intimate face as well: survey after survey
consistently finds that people view themselves as more ethical than others in their
profession or organization, and they view those in their own group as more ethical than
others outside the group. Too often we regard ethical problems as applying mainly to
other people. Self-reflection, together with a habit of applying most moral judgments
only to oneself, is the best antidote for self-righteousness.
Self-Indulgence. Most corruption scandals are due to garden-variety greed for money
and/or power. This represents self-indulgence, in which an individual is unable or
unwilling to resist temptation. (Abuses are also occasionally the result of ignorance,
which may be an explanation but rarely a justification.) The best way to protect against
self-indulgence at the personal level is to marshal the virtue of self-restraint.
Institutionally, the remedy is to design effective and humane accountability and control
mechanisms.
Self-Protection. Escaping blame and hiding behind the authority of others (epitomized by
the Nuremberg defense of "only following orders") represents an abandonment of
personal responsibility and judgment. For moral leaders, fixing the blame should not
preempt fixing the problem. Remedies for this def1ciency include moral courage,
mentoring, ethics training, and accessible confidential re- sources such as the federal
designated agency ethics officer, ethics commissions, and safeguards for whistle blowers
and the accused.
Self-Deception. Perhaps the most widespread ethical deficiency (and the most insidious
one) is self-deception. We often mask real but ignoble motives even from ourselves. The
remedy is self-reflection, self-knowledge, and the courage to face the truth about falling.
short of one's personal standards (which is preferable to compounding the offense with
hypocrisy).
Making Ethical Decisions
The various approaches we have discussed all have a role to play in promoting the ethical
conduct of public officials. Understanding and trying to accommodate the different basic
perspectives on ethics is not an argument for situational or relativistic ethics. It is crucial
to administrators' functioning as trustees or stewards, however. Administrators exercising
public power in a democracy are obligated to be responsive and accountable to the
people. We believe that minimum standards, high-minded principles, and a virtuous
character are not by themselves adequate to ensure that this obligation is met, given the
complexity of the modern political environment and the demands placed on public
administrators. Thoughtful reflection and judgment are also crucial and distinctive
aspects of ethical conduct.
Ethical Reasoning and Judgment
Public administrators often face incongruent responsibilities and conflicting claim As
unfamiliar situations, organizational and technological impersonality, and professional
and public power intensify pressures, public servants can count on el countering true
ethical dilemmas, in which a well-intentioned person of strong moral character is
troubled by opposing claims and competing ethical values an principles. In such
circumstances, prudent and pragmatic decision makers apply ethical reasoning to resolve
their dilemma.
Ethics in this context refers to making systematic, reasoned judgments about right
and wrong and, equally important, taking responsibility for them. The reasoning
underlying a resolution, decision, or agreement is important in aiding understanding
about ourselves and others; probably even more than the answer we arrive at, our
reasoning informs us about who we are, what we value, and how we are likely to resolve
future dilemmas.
Making decisions in authentic, coherent ethical terms is essential to maintaining
one's personal integrity. So is taking responsibility for one's decisions and being held
accountable for them. Judgment and responsibility help to distinguish between loyalty
and obedience; loyalty is generally considered an ethic, virtue, obedience is not.
Moreover, integrity is vitally instrumental to a democracy that relies upon citizens'
voluntary compliance and willing participation. The public's confidence and trust in
government depend in no small degree on the integrity they attribute to their leaders and
institutions.
According to our concept of ethics, no ethical resolution is permanent no can it be
provided by someone else. Nonetheless, standards and expectations are operative in
public service. The mix of "oughts" has been catalogued elsewhere (for example, see
Council of State Governments, 1993;Josephson Institute, 199C Mertins and others, 1994;
Office of Government Ethics, 1992; Stewart and Sprinthall, 1993). The priorities by
which obligations and responsibilities are ranked are more troublesome; this is at the very
heart of ethical dilemmas.
Ethical imperatives may be framed in terms of not doing harm, easing or reducing
injury; accounting for stakes and stakeholders, and taking care of the de pendent and
vulnerable. But the many values and principles of public service ma' dictate contradictory
actions, creating a moral dilemma. The burden-and beauty-of ethics is that there is no
user-friendly menu-driven program to substitute for personal judgment and responsibility.
Elements of Ethical Decision Making
From the elements discussed above, we can see that ethical decision making exercises the
virtues, refrains from the vices, and starts by scanning and assessing the ethical claims at
stake. These claims include roles (and the associated appropriate behaviors), affected
parties and interests, values and virtues, and principles and duties. Many decision-making
models developed for public service (Cooper, 1990; Lewis, 1991) and business (N ash,
1990; Rion, 1990) stress adequate information and feedback so that claims are neither
neglected nor misunderstood. A useful decision-making model also allows for gradations
and modifications. Decision makers routinely apply different approaches and
perspectives, depending upon the seriousness of the case and whether the issue is
significant or trivial, novel or common.
Various types of responsibility are factored in. According to Cooper (1990),
objective responsibilities are externally imposed expectations and involve obligations to
elected officials, superiors, and the citizenry. Subjective responsibilities are internally
imposed and derive from personal feelings, beliefs, experiences, and values. When
objective and subjective responsibilities collide, as they are bound to do, the public
administrator confronts an ethical dilemma. The values of accountability, responsiveness,
and detecting and correcting error require that considerable effort be expended to resolve
it.
The "publicity test," an evaluative test regularly applied to ethical choices (Rawls,
1971, p. 133), is particularly useful in promoting the administrator's obligation to avoid
the appearance of impropriety and to promote public confidence and trust. The idea
behind the publicity test is captured nicely in this advice from Thomas Jefferson in a
letter written in 1785 to his nephew and ward: "Whenever you are to do a thing, tho' it
can never be known but to yourself ask yourself how you would act were all the world
looking at you, and act accordingly" (1975, p. 381 ). Several variations on this theme can
provide administrators with a useful check of the ethical adequacy of their contemplated
actions. The mirror test for integrity asks, "What kind of person do I admire and want to
be?" The publicity test for accountability asks, 'Am I willing to read about this in the
newspaper? Tell my family?" The visceral-reaction test for implementation and
authenticity asks, 'Am I willing and/ or likely to follow through? How does this feel? Can
I live with it?"
The next step is ethical action that is both publicly defensible and personally
supportable on ethical grounds. Ethical actions are firmly rooted in moral values and
principles that express what is right and important in relationships and society. Aristotle
defined ethics as a practical field rooted in habitual action of a moral character. Finally,
to be adequate, ethics must be learning oriented. Actors must pay careful attention to the
results of their actions and adjust their conduct accordingly over time.
Summary
We have discussed several approaches to ethics in public service-the compliance
approach, aspirational ethics and the appeal to principle, character ethics, and the reliance
on ethical reasoning. All are relevant and appropriate in specific instances as public
administrators seek to fulfill their responsibilities in an increasingly demanding
environment.
There are also many things public administrators can do to improve ethical
conduct within their organizations. Here is a sample from the ethics handbook of the
International City / County Management Association (Kellar, 1988):






Set the tone for a high standard of conduct by clearly articulating the
organization's values.
Make ethics a part of employee orientation and training programs.
Include ethics concerns in performance evaluations and in regular feedback to
employees.
Audit management practices in different parts of the organization to help identify
existing or potential ethics problems.
Develop a code of ethics and keep it alive, not only by enforcing it when
violations occur but also by communicating its meaning and updating it as new
concerns develop.
Make certain that the actions of top officials are consistent with their expectations
for employee conduct.
The task of ethics-bringing reason and reflection to bear on complex problems
and attempting to meet ethical standards and live by ethical principles-is an ongoing
process for each individual. On this process rests the public administrator's personal
integrity and ultimately the character of the polity.
References
American Society for Public Administration. Code of Ethics and Implementation
Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1985.
Bowman, J. "Ethics in Government' A National Survey of Public Administrators."
Public Ad- ministration Review, 1990,50,345-353.
Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai. The 7liaching of Buddha. (509th ed.) Tokyo. Toppan,
1987.
Catron, B. L., and Denhardt, K. "Ethics Education in Public Administration." In T
Cooper (ed.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics. New York. Marcel Dekker, 1993.
Congressional Research Service. U.S. Library of Congress. "Legislative Ethics in
Democratic Countries: Comparative Analysis of Financial Standards." CRS Report 94325A. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 1994.
Cook, F:J. "The Corrupt Society." TheJ\liltion, 1963,196, 454-496.
Cooper, T L. The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the
Administrative Role. (3rd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Council of State Governments. COGEL Blue Book. (9th ed.) Lexington, K)(:
1993. Dobel,J. 1'. Compromise and Political Action. Savage, Md.: Rowan & Littlefield,
1990.
Feigenbaum, E. D., Pockrass, S. F:, Chapman, B. A., and Lenzer, S. E;ffective
Strategies for the Prosecution of Public Corruption. Final Report. Indianapolis, Ind.:
Hudson Institute, 1991.
Frederickson, H. G. "Can Public Officials Correctly Be Said to Have Obligations
to Future Generations?" Public Administration Review, 1994, 54, 457-464.
Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1982.
Gilligan, C., Ward,J. V, Taylor,J. M, and Bardige, B. (eds.). Mapping the Moral
Domain. Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1988.
Goodsell, C. T The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. (3rd
ed.) Chatham, NJ.:
Chatham House, 1994.
Gorlin, R. A. (ed.). Codes of Professional Responsibility. (2nd ed.) Washington,
D.C.. Bureau of National Affairs, 1990.
Guy; M. E. Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situations. Westport,
Conn. : Quorum Books, 1990.
Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press,
Clarendon Press, 1961.
Hirschmann, N.J. "Freedom, Recognition, and Obligation: A Feminist Approach
to Political Theory." American Political Science Review, 1989, 83, 1227-1244.
Huang, L.-H. A Complete Book Concerning HapPiness and Benevolence. A
Manual for Local Magistrates in Seventeenth-Century China. (D. Chu, trans. and ed.)
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1984.
Jefferson, T. "Letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785." The Portable Jefferson. New
York: Viking Penguin,1975.
Josephson Institute. "Ethics Pledge for Elected Officials." Marina del Rey, Calif:
Josephson Institute for the Advancement of Ethics, Government Ethics Center, 1990.
Kass, H. D. "Stewardship as a Fundamental Element in Images of Public
Administration."
In H. D. Kass and B. L. Catron (eds.), Images and Identities in Public
Administration. Newbury
Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990.
Kellar, E. K. (ed.). Ethical Insight, Ethical Action: Perspectives for the Local
Government Managel: Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management
Association, 1988.
Kohlberg, L. The Philosophy of Moral Development, Moral Stages and the Idea
of Justice. Vol. 1. New
York: HarperCollins, 1981.
Ladd, E. C. "Ethics Problems. ..and Problems in Polling on Ethics." The Public
Perspective, 1993,4, 20--21.
Lewis, C. W The Ethics Challenge in Public Service. A Problem-Solving Guide.
San Francisco. Jossey- Bass, 1991.
Lewis, G. B. "In Search of the Machiavellian Milquetoasts: Comparing Attitudes
of Bureaucrats and Ordinary People." Public Administration Review, 1990, 50, 220-227.
Mertins, H., Jr., and others (eds.). Applying Professional Standards and Ethics in
the Nineties. A UYJi book and Study Guide with Cases for Public Administrators. (3rd
ed.) Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1994.
Morgan, D. F., and Kass, H. D. "Legitimizing Administrative Discretion Through
Constitutional Stewardship." In J. S. Bowman (ed.), Ethical Frontiers in Public
Management: Seeking j, Strategies for Resolving Ethical Dilemmas. San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass, 1991.
Nash, L. L. Good Intentions Aside: A Manager's Guide to Resolving Ethical
Problems. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1990.
Office of Government Ethics. How to Keep Out of 1Touble: Ethical Conduct for
Federal Employees. Washington, D.C.: Office of Government Ethics, 1989.
Office of Government Ethics. Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch. Washington, D.C.: Office of Government Ethics, 1992.
Okin, S. M. Justice, Gende1; and the Family. New York: Basic Books, 1989.
Rawls,J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Rion, M. The Responsible Manager: Practical Strategies for Ethical Decision
Making. New York: HarperCollins, 1990.
Rohr,J. A. Ethicsfor Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values. (2nd ed.) New
York: Marcel Decker, 1989.
Rosenbloom, D. R. "The Constitution as a Basis for Public Administrative
Ethics." In P. Madsen and J. M. Shafritz (eds.), Essentials of Government Ethics. New
York: Viking Penguin, 1992.
Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Classics,
1976.
Stewart, D. W., and Sprinthall, N. A. "The Impact of Demographic, Professional,
and Or nizational Variables and Domain on the Moral Reasoning of Public
Administrators." I H. G. Frederickson (ed.), Ethics and Public Administration. Armonk,
N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, 19
"Survey Data on Ethics." The Public Perspective, 1993, 4,29-34.
Thompson, D. F. "The Possibility of Administrative Ethics." Public
Administration Review, 19
45, 555-561.