Free Essay About Terry Cooper’s “Context of Administrative Ethics” vs. Gary Owen’s “Beyond Self Interest”

Terry Cooper in, “the Context of Administrative Ethics,” and Gary Owen in, “Beyond Self Interest,” both offer illuminating views on issues that affect the current public administration. While the two authors talk about essentially varying aspects of administration, the nexus in their articles is that they both relate to matters affecting public administration in general and in particular public administrators. This paper shall reflect on the same and equally give its position on the issues brought forth. However, from the onset, it is imperative to appreciate the fact that both authors advocate for best practice in administration for the overall best interest of the public. It is critical to have in consideration the fact that the best interest of the public is the guiding role in decision making by administrators; however, the same may not be observed due to the competing personal interests.
Cooper assumes the view that the postmodern era has greatly affected public administration. In that context, it is has become essential for administrators to take into consideration elements brought forth by the postmodern era. It is this paper’s contention that indeed the postmodern era has occasioned a number of changes that public administration has had to accept. In concurring with the author, it is indeed the position that while public administrators may seek to separate politics from administration, the same is difficult and attempted separation only limits the success in public administration. In addition, the clear delineation between the citizenry and the administrators is worth appreciation. The citizenry hold an expectation. The same is legitimate given the social contract premise. However, the administrators do not have a right to expectation. On the contrary, they are armed with the government repository and are hence expected to deliver to the people. The relationship between the citizenry and the administrators is that of a master-servant relation in which the citizens play the role of the toothless masters.
On the other hand, Owen argues that the decisions and policies arrived at in public processes are more out of the collective interests, ideas and values rather than the self-interests as is often perceived. His argument, though difficult to accept, brings forth the remaining portions of administrative sanity. This is to say, if that is the case, then the public administrators work beyond self-interests and are indeed the agents of the people and are for the people’s interests. Owen traces the argument from across the spectrum and observes areas that collectivism often carries the day over individuality. In fact, he falls short of criticizing the market models of operation. While this paper appreciates the reality behind macro-motives and macro-behavior, it is the paper’s postulation that the approach is too simplistic to be true. Indeed, collective ideas and values may influence policies and decision making. However, from a broader spectrum, it is imperative to appreciate that collectivism is often defeated by individuality when the stakes are too high. It is from this appreciation that scholars have argued about the two publics in the eyes of the administrators. The first public is the personal interests while the second is the citizenry. Indeed, for most public administrators, their loyalty has often been with the first public. It is only that in many cases, as is the ones mentioned by Owen, the two publics often concur hence the universalism and collectivism. However, in other unreported instances, administrators are often guided by their own personal interests. On that vein, this paper assumes the position that the beyond self-interest argument is too simplistic in its approach.