Macro-Ethics in the Code of the Pan-Generalist
American Society for Public Administration*
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.
*
This is an abbreviated version of a manuscript selected for publication in Public Integrity.
1
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
2
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
3
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.”
4
Appendix.
Illustration of an 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 seek 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:
7. Follow both the letter and the spirit of the law and uphold constitutions.
8. Treat all persons equally with fairness and due process and respect individual
rights and freedoms.
9. Promote social equity and reduce inequality, unfairness, and injustice based on
significant social characteristics.
10. Respect and protect privileged or classified information.
5
III. Serve the Public and Promote Democracy. Provide services to the public while
encouraging the public to act on their responsibilities as citizens. ASPA members are
committed to:
11. Serve the public with courtesy, consistency, impartiality, and dedication to high
standards.
12. Be responsive to elected officials and support the accomplishment of their goals in
ways consistent with the law. Support elected officials with honesty and
independence.
13. Offer complete and unbiased information in support of recommendations.
14. Recognize and support the public's right to know the public's business.
15. Involve citizens in the development, implementation, and assessment of policies and
public programs, and seek to empower citizens in the democratic process with
special attention to those who lack formal organization or influence.
16. Seek to incorporate the preferences and aspirations of the public in the
development of policy recommendations.
17. Assist residents in their dealings with government and respond to the public in
ways that are complete, clear, and easy to understand.
IV. Demonstrate Commitment to Duty, Principles, and Personal Integrity. Accept
the obligations that are integral to a public service position and demonstrate the
highest standards in all activities to inspire public confidence and trust in public
service. ASPA members are committed to:
18. Accept individual responsibility for their actions and the consequences of their
actions.
19. Act as stewards of public funds by the strategic, effective, and efficient use of
resources; by regularly reexamining whether programs should be continued and
how they should be delivered; and by preventing all forms of mismanagement or
waste.
20. Conduct official acts without partisanship or favoritism.
21. Exercise integrity, courage, compassion, benevolence, and optimism.
22. Recognize the primacy of conscience in public and private affairs and accept the
principle that good ends never justify immoral means to achieve them.
23. Maintain truthfulness and honesty and to not compromise them for advancement,
honor, or personal gain.
24. Respect the inherent dignity and worth of each person and treat each person as
an end in him/herself rather than as means to other ends.
25. Not use public office for personal gain or to advance personal or private interests.
26. Zealously guard against conflict of interest or its appearance. Disclose any
interests that may affect objectivity in making decisions and recuse themselves from
6
participation in those decisions.
27. Seek to correct instances of wrongdoing or report them to superiors. If remedies
cannot be assured by reporting wrongdoing internally, reveal it to external
parties or to the public. Encourage and facilitate legitimate dissent activities in
government and protect the whistleblowing rights of public employees.
28. Respect superiors, subordinates, colleagues and the public.
V. Promote Ethical Organizations. Strengthen organizational capabilities to apply
ethics, efficiency and effectiveness in serving the public. ASPA members are
committed to:
29. Seek to advance the mission of the organization of which they are a part.
30. Establish procedures that hold individuals and organizations accountable for their
conduct and provide information that will enable superiors and the public to
assess the quality and effectiveness of their performance.
31. Provide organization members with an administrative means for dissent,
assurance of due process and safeguards against reprisal.
32. Support merit principles that promote excellence in the selection and promotion of
public officials and protect against arbitrary and capricious actions.
33. Oppose all forms of discrimination and harassment, and promote affirmative
efforts to increase the representativeness of the public workforce and the full
inclusion of persons with diverse characteristics.
34. Encourage organizations to adopt, distribute, and periodically review a code of
ethics as a living document that applies principles of this code to the specific
mission and conditions of the organization.
VI. Strive for Professional Excellence. Strengthen individual capabilities and
encourage the professional development of oneself, of others, and of professional
associations of public servants. ASPA members are committed to:
35. Provide support and encouragement to upgrade competence.
36. Encourage others, throughout their careers, to participate in professional activities
and associations.
37. Accept as a personal duty the responsibility to keep up to date on emerging issues
and potential problems.
38. Allocate time and resources to the professional development of students, interns,
beginning professionals, and other colleagues.
39. Promote this code as an evolving statement of the aspirations and expectations of
public servants and use this code as a guide to identify serious shortcomings in
the behavior of ASPA members that warrant sanctions or expulsion of a member
from the Society.
7
40. Honor and support the ethics codes of other professional associations that
include persons who work in public affairs and link the values and principles of
ASPA to those of other associations.
References
Arnold, David S. and Jeremy F. Plant, 1994. Public Official Associations and State and
Local Government. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press.
Bowman, James S. 1990. “Ethics in Government: A National Survey of Public
Administrators.” Public Administration Review 50: 345-353.
Bowman, James S. 2000. “Towards a Professional Ethos: From Regulatory to Reflective
Codes.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 66: 673-687.
Bowman, James S., Jonathan P. West, Evan M. Berman, and Montgomery Van Wart,
2004. The Professional Edge: Competencies in Public Service. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Chandler, Ralph Clark, 1982. “The Problem of Moral Illiteracy in Professional
Discourse: The Case of the Statement of Principles of the American Society for
Public Administration.” American Review of Public Administration 1982: 369386.
Cooper, Terry L. 1987. “Hierarchy, Virtue, and the Practice of Public Administration: A
Perspective for Normative Ethics.” Public Administration Review 47: 320-328.
Gortner, Harold F. 1991. Ethics for Public Managers. New York: Praeger.
Ladd, John, 1980. “The Quest for a Code of Professional Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral
Confusion.” In Professional Ethics Activities in the Scientific and Engineering
Societies, eds. Rosemary Chalk, Mark S. Frankel, and Sallie B. Chafer, 154-159.
Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mosher, Frederick C. 1978. “Professions in Public Service.” Public Administration
Review, 38 (2): 144-150.
Mosher, William E. 1938. “Public Administration: The Profession of Public Service.”
American Political Science Review 32 (2): 332-342
Plant, Jeremy F. 1994. “Codes of Ethics.” In Handbook of Administrative Ethics, ed.
Terry L. Cooper, chapter 13. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Pugh, Darrel L. 1991. “The Origin of Ethical Frameworks in Public Administration,” in
Ethical Frontiers in Public Management, ed. James S. Bowman, chapter 1. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Svara, James H. 2007. The Ethics Primer for Public Administrators in Government and
Nonprofit Organizations. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
8
Svara, James H. 2009. “Introduction to the Symposium: The Nature of Public
Professionals and the Future of ASPA,” Public Administration Review 69: 10371039.
Svara, James H. and Larry D. Terry II, 2009. “The Present Challenges to ASPA an as
Association That Promotes Public Professionalism,” Public Administration
Review 69: 1050-1059.
Van Wart, Montgomery. 1996. The Sources of Ethical Decision Making for Individuals
in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review 56 (6): 525-533.
Van Wart, Montgomery. 2003. Codes of Ethics as Living Documents: The Case of the
American Society for Public Administration. Public Integrity 5 (4): 331–346.
Endnotes
1
According to Van Wart (2003), specific suggestions were made to add provisions related to
training, professional development, and citizen participation. Other suggestions would
have substituted for the word “equity” for “ethics” in the preamble to section IV,
separated dissent and whistleblowing, clarified affirmative action, and addressed the
balancing of the public’s right to know and the protection of privileged information.
Finally, the possibility was raised of differential neutrality standards for ASPA members
in merit administrative positions versus those in elected capacities.
9