Institutions
In this paper, two central ethos for the public administrator will be looked. They are; the constitutional ethic presented by Kennedy, et.al. that makes the case that a public administrator should be guided by the Constitution in any managerial discretion decisions s/he makes. The second one is the argument Fredrickson makes the case that social equity should be the ethic that guides decisions in cases of administration discretion. This paper will compare and contrasts the two ethos.
The first etho ensures that the administrator works and makes their decisions basing on some action, but they should follow the guidelines set by the constitution. This means that the administrator is limited to the decisions they make. The administrator is, therefore, limited in his decisions by various statutes.
On the other hand, the argument Fredrickson makes the case that social equity should be the ethic that guides decisions in cases of administration discretion, necessitates the professional know-how and judgment, than the call for strict devotion to regulations or statutes, in creating a decision or execution of official acts or duties. This means that instant decisions can be made with no outer interference.
Even though these two ethos have operational differences, they all aim at making the public service and decision making smooth. They complement each other to bring forth an efficient office .They are mutually exclusive. They do not happen in any sequence, they are independent. In case of a conflict the second etho, Fredrickson’s would come on top since it offers a chance of instantaneous reaction to things as they happen. It is easily the best method even though it is liable to abuse if used recklessly.
Colloquy on European Law (25, 1995, Oxford). (1997). Administrative discretion and problems of accountability: Proceedings : 25th Colloquy on European law, Oxford (United Kingdom), 27-29 september 1995. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ. References
