Good Example Of Ethics in the Public Sector Essay

Terry Cooper and Louis Gawthrop assume a different approach on matters of ethics especially in the public sector. They bring out the nuances that characterize operations in the public sector. Gawthrop takes us through the historical developments in the governance of the United States of America. He outlines the progress which begins with the presidency of George Washington. Interestingly, Gawthrop appreciates the bureaucracy which was formally introduced by President Wilson Woodrow. Woodrow essentially sought to distinguish between the political unit of government and the administrative unit. He considered the latter as the bureaucracy. It is this bureaucracy that is formally charged with protecting the interests of the citizenry. The big question that Gawthrop asks is whether the bureaucracy still cares. As he puts it, “does anyone still care?” This line of questioning and the context of public ethics appear to suggest a laid back approach by the bureaucracy in their function to protect the citizenry.
Cooper appears to read from the same script as Gawthrop. However, for Cooper he sees the main inconvenience as being a consequence of the limitations of the law. In fact, Cooper falls short of dispensing with the law which he considers inadequate to handle the ethical contestations at hand. In overall, Cooper observes the fact that the law is a moral minimum. He observes that the law is both complicated and sometimes not sufficient to defend ethical standards and therefore unethical.
I do concur with the postulations of the two. Indeed, as Gawthrop appears to suggest, it is the administrative bureaucracy that ought to defend the rights of the publics. It is, however, essential to consider the two publics that often surmise. In the eyes of the bureaucracy, the first public is their own individual interest while the second public refers to the real public. In the eyes of the bureaucracy, the first public should be given consideration over the second public. However, this approach does not augur well with what should be the ideal practice. It is expected that the real public interests will guide the activities and action of the bureaucracy. I do support the latter approach over the former.
That notwithstanding, I appreciate the fact that the bureaucracy is fallible and human. It would, therefore, defend its own interests over that of the public especially where a conflict of interest occurs. In that vein, the observation by the two authors is honest and timely. There is need to have the bureaucracy reconsider their approach in the dispensation of service. Suffice it to say that the bureaucracy exists for the singular protection of the public interests and it is only logical that they do so effectively.
Cooper and Gawthrop, therefore, make timely calls for the reconfiguration of the public sector. Within that context is the need to improve the legislative regime. This is addressed in an effective manner in Cooper’s observation of the limitation of the law. As it stands, the law is set out from ethics. It is critical that the law becomes commensurate with the ethical framework. It is essential that ethics inform the law and not the converse. In conclusion, it is my position that although protecting the interests of the public is difficult; the same ought to inform the activities and principles of the bureaucracy. In addition, it is equally important for the public to expect fallibility by the bureaucracy.