Administrative Ethics and Professional Competence: Accountability and Performance under Globalization

DOI10.1177/0020852302681007
Date01 March 2002
Published date01 March 2002
Subject MatterArticles
Administrative ethics and professional competence:
accountability and performance under globalization
Ali Farazmand
Introduction
The current worldwide concern for accountability and ethics in public service and
administration has reached a highly critical level, signaling another feature of a
growing global crisis in public service and administration. Calibration of this
global crisis of confidence in governance and administration requires deep under-
standing of its possible causes and consequences (Habermas, 1984; Bennett,
1992). Like many other important issues, ethics and accountability transcend
virtually all human and institutional boundaries at local, national and internation-
al levels. Calibration of the current public service crisis is therefore a task that
demands attention from all actors in governance and administration processes
around the world (Freedman, 1978; Habermas, 1984; Rosen, 1986; Farazmand,
1989, 2001; Ban, 2000; Brown, 2000; Lewis, 2000). This would involve citizens,
policy actors, governing political elites and administrative elites across the globe.
Restoration of the public service image is an imperative that needs to be recog-
nized as well.
Public service has always been valued as a major feature of human civilization.
This has been due to many factors, including the nature of humankind as a social
creature with concern for common good and common interests as well as for self-
interest. The state and public sector organizations have played a leading role
in providing this common good and public service throughout history. In fact,
civilization and administration have been developed together, one promoting the
other (Waldo, 1980/1992). This is evidenced by the highly developed public
bureaucracy and civil service system, as well as by the proliferating intellectual/
philosophical development concerning public service in the great ancient empires
of Persia, Greece, China and Rome, where much of the modern knowledge of
public administration originated.
The rise and expansion of the modern state has also contributed significantly to
Ali Farazmand is Professor in the School of Public Administration at Florida Atlantic
University. CDU: 35.083(100). The original version of this article was presented at the
1999 Special Conference of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS),
in Sunningdale, UK, 12–15 July 1999.
International Review of Administrative Sciences [0020–8523(200203)68:1]
Copyright © 2002 IIAS. SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi), Vol.68 (2002), 127–143; 022641
02_IRAS68/1 articles 8/3/02 10:52 am Page 127
the growth and expansion of public service. This has been accompanied by
increasing bureaucratization and professionalization of the modern state, as Max
Weber (1946, 1984) predicted a long time ago. Professionalization has added
many values to the administrative and organizational values, such as efficiency,
effectiveness, merit and performance-based virtues. Ironically, some of these
administrative values have during the last few decades come into conflict with the
long cherished human values of citizenship and democratic principles, such as
political representation, responsiveness and responsibility. Professionalization of
public service and administration has indeed changed the nature of modern
organizations by implanting deeply the instrumental rationality that has domi-
nated societies as well as organizational life around the globe (Farazmand, 1994a;
Rosenbloom, 1995; Van Riper, 1997). This dominance has been more prevalent
in the western societies of the United States and Europe than in developing
nations, which have been heavily influenced first by the colonizing powers and
then by the neo-colonial rule of global imperialism.
Currently, two global observations appear to be the prevailing trends: (1) glob-
alization and cultural convergence of the world by western instrumental ration-
ality, especially through the current government reinventing, re-engineering,
structural adjustments, privatization and redefinition of public–private sectors
configurations designed and led by corporate and government elites; and (2) the
counter-pressures from below by masses of citizenry against this rampant
instrumental rationality in industrialized nations of the North such as the United
States and Europe, as well as in developing countries (Lipset, 1987; Wise, 1994;
Harmon, 1995; Korten, 1995). The result has been a clash of major values under-
lying the administrative and political systems around the world. Demand for
citizen participation in and democratization of governance has been increasing as
elites press on more workforce downsizing, privatization, cutting or eliminating
employment benefits and high efficiency with profitable adventures of mergers
and financial empire building (Henry, 1995; Farazmand, 1999c). While reducing
the size of government may be advocated by supporters of higher efficiency and
private enterprise interests, opponents argue that accountability to the broad
public and fairness in governance has been diminished significantly if not lost
altogether.
The phenomenon of globalization of capital also has aggravated these
problems, as its financial, marketing, production, cultural and coercive state pow-
ers have transcended national boundaries and made states irrelevant to a consider-
able extent (Ohmae, 1990; Fukuyama, 1992). Globalization of capital has violat-
ed territorial sovereignty and threatened communities’ democratic rights in a
trans-border world (Korten, 1995; Mele, 1996; Farazmand, 1999c). With the US
unilateral declaration of a global war on terrorism since 11 September 2001, a
new phase or wave of globalization has emerged with a feature of militarization
and intimidation of the entire globe. This new phase leaves no room for any
choice for any people or nation but to succumb to the dictates of the globalizing
corporate power structure. Any voice of opposition is being labeled as supportive
128 International Review of Administrative Sciences 68(1)
02_IRAS68/1 articles 8/3/02 10:52 am Page 128

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT