Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

Integrating Ethics into the Public Administration Curriculum: A Three-Step Process

Author(s): John R. Walton, James M. Stearns and Charles T. Crespy
Source: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, Special Issue: The New
Public Management in New Zealand and Beyond (Summer, 1997), pp. 470-483
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3326119
Accessed: 15-02-2019 07:48 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Wiley are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Robert Michael
A. LeoneO'Hare
Cose Notes Coeditors

Submissions to Curriculum and Case Notes should be sent to

School of Management, Boston University, Boston, MA 0221

INTEGRATING ETHICS INTO THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CUR

A THREE-STEP PROCESS

John R. Walton
James M. Stearns
Charles T. Crespy

Abstract

This article provides a three-step process for analyzing public policy dilemmas
with ethical implications. A framework is proposed that builds on existing
ethics theories and attempts to provide a relevant, usable approach for
decisionmaking. A review of current thought in ethics indicates a concern
for two areas: (a) responsibilities to relevant constituencies; and (b) adherence
to moral obligations. The framework presented herein directly addresses both
of these areas of concern. The authors have found this approach to be useful
for classroom applications. This process is simple to explain, understand, and
apply to a range of administrative situations. Students find the framework a
memorable tool, useful in structuring deliberations with ethical implications.
Sample applications of the framework provide examples for educators inter-
ested in integrating ethics into their advanced undergraduate and gradu-
ate courses.

Introduction

Schools of public affairs and public administration are coming

ing pressure to integrate discussions of ethics into their curric
to best accomplish this has been the subject of considerable con
article describes an analytic approach one of the authors has us
an ethical perspective into a graduate policy analysis course. Th

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, 470-483 (1997)
? 1997 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0276-8739/97/030470-14

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Case Notes / 471

demonstrated that when this approach is used early in the course, subsequent
discussions are enriched because students acquire skills and insights which
allow them to identify, evaluate, and articulate different ethical viewpoints
and perspectives. Our assumption is that students will need to be able to deal
with new ethical challenges that may require analysis, and to do so in an
environment in which everyone may not be reasoning (or asserting) from the
same ethical model.

Background

Interest in administrative ethics can be explained in part by the fact that

administrators are confronted almost daily with a variety of ethical dilemmas.
Although contributions from academic circles include a host of normative and
descriptive ethics models, the actual use and application of these models has
been modest at best. Robin and Reidenbach [1987] conclude that, "What is
needed, but has not been forthcoming from these analyses, is a useful, compre-
hensive, decision-oriented framework to aid ... in thinking about the different
ethical dilemmas" (p. 3). Bergenson [1992] similarly concluded that a review
of the progress in the field of administrative ethics revealed a disjointed body
of literature in need of a cohesive and coherent framework for analysis.
The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration
(NASPAA) accreditation guidelines emphasize the need for core curricula to
impart the "skills to act ethically and effectively . .." [NASPAA, 1992, p. 3]
From a national survey of graduate schools of public administration, Cleary
[1990] identified ethics as the largest curricular gap, save for concerns for
nonprofit management (p. 30). Cleary's findings and a belief in the importance
of ethics in public administration are supported by others [Bowman, 1990,
1991; Burton, 1990; Frederickson, 1990, 1994; Lee and Paddock, 1992; Marini
1992; Menson, 1990; Van Wart, 1995].
Notwithstanding these laments and the NASPAA directives for more empha-
sis on ethics in curricula, Hejka-Ekins [1988] concluded: "In the teaching of
public service ethics, vacillation is evident between a stated commitment and
actual educational practices" (p. 885). Although there is general agreement
about the importance of ethics instruction in the curriculum, the majority of
programs have not developed specific ethics courses. The only alternative to
a stand-alone course is the integration of ethics into courses such as Policy
Analysis. Effective integration into coursework requires accomplishing the
three most important goals of ethics education as identified by public adminis-
tration educators themselves:

1. To develop an awareness of ethical issues and problems in the field.

2. To build analytical skills in decisionmaking.
3. To cultivate an attitude of moral obligation and personal responsibility in pursuing
a career in the public service. (Hejka-Ekins, 1988, p. 887)

The authors' experience with ethics education is strikingly similar. Students

gain most from experiences that: (a) are based on an understanding of the
diverse perspectives of moral philosophers (Hejka-Ekins's "awareness of ethical
issues"); (b) frame the ethical dilemma in a model that allows discussion
from diverse perspectives (Hejka-Ekins's "build analytical skills in decision
making"); and (c) provide a vehicle for playing out the conflicts that arise so
that students can measure the extent to which they have fulfilled the manifold

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
472 / Curriculum and Case Notes

and conflicting moral obligations they have identified (Hejka-Ekins's "cultivate

an attitude of moral obligation in ... public service").
Thus, successful classroom exercises require a framework that is grounded
in theory, yet easy to understand and use. The purpose of this article is to
describe the development and use of one such analytic method that can be
applied in policy analysis courses. This approach to ethics education is summa-
rized in the three steps that follow. The rationale for this sequence is rooted
in a progressive exposure to the complexities of ethical analysis. The framework
offered in Step 2 presents a tool one can use in Step 3 to thoughtfully analyze
ethical dilemmas.

Step 1: Understanding the Basics of Moral Philosophy

Understanding how great thinkers define ethical behavior is central to the

exercise presented here. A summary reading assignment and a brief discussion
can provide this foundation. Ethical theories are neither easily nor consistently
applied to real-life situations. As a consequence, different theories of ethics
may imply different actions in a given situation. Some theories are based on
the consequences of one's actions [see John Stuart Mill, 1861, and teleology]
while others are predicated on the original intent of one's actions [see John
Rawls, 1971, and deontology]. For example, a Rawlsian approach might indi-
cate that a certain action was ethical, while a Millian approach may present
a contradictory view. Understanding diverse frames of reference is essential for
a meaningful discussion of administrative ethics. To handle ethical dilemmas
effectively, students must understand that utilitarians must project outcomes
and assess the ethicality of actions based on a priori estimations of outcomes,
whereas a deontologist must judge actions based on the intent of the actors
regardless of the outcomes of the actions. At a minimum students should
understand these theories in order to provide a vocabulary and a sense of
ethical reasoning for subsequent discussions.
The Appendix provides a thumbnail sketch of three distinct frames of refer-
ence or "schools of thought" and can be used as a summative device for the
discussion of the readings suggested. In the interest of parsimony, the Appendix
is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. The reader is directed
to Gandz and Hayes [1988] and Rachaels [1986] for a more thorough and
balanced treatment of the topic. Either of these readings makes an excellent
assignment to precede the presentation of Step 2.

Step 2: Framing the Ethical Problem: The Obligations by Parties Matrix

Obligations

Over half a century ago, ethicist William Ross [ 1930] identified, among others,
three duties that constitute moral obligations which he saw as universal and
self-evident. Interpreted for the field of public administration, these duties
apply to a variety of constituent groups and include the obligations listed in
Table 1.
Similarly, Lewis [1991] provides a comprehensive and practical approach
to administrative ethics that describes ethical issues in public service, demon-
strates how theory can be applied to develop decisionmaking methods and
tools, and concludes with a discussion of how these methods and tools can be
used to create a more ethical public agency. Although her work is not easily

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curiculum and Case Notes / 473

Table 1. Obligations of the public administrator.

Obligation Explanation

Do no harm Cause no pain or suffering o

Improvement Improve the condition of th
Equity/fairness Treat all groups and individu

applied within existing courses, her dis

the stakeholder concept are particularly
development of the framework descr
"parties" and "stakeholders" are used sy
Unlike philosophies of teleology and c
deontological theory, emphasizing the
decisionmaker, not the morality or imm
sions. This approach has become an emerg
administration although by no means
1996]. Guy [1990], Lewis and Catron [1
[1991] have elaborated lists of or iden
makers. Combining and interpreting the
the early, creative work of Ross.

Stakeholders/Parties

Another significant contribution of Lewis [1991] is the inclusion of stakeholders

[similar to Freeman, 1984]. A stakeholder is a "significant player in ethical
dilemmas" [Lewis, 1991, p. 120]. Stakeholders may be:

1. Internal: the organization or agency . . . superiors, employees, and decision

maker.
2. External and direct: clients and suppliers, lawmakers, taxpayers, and community
residents and businesses.
3. External and indirect: those keyed to general interests . .. citizens and society,
other jurisdictions, the private sector, and future generations. (Lewis, 1991, p. 121)

The Obligations by Parties (ODP) Matrix

This summary of current thought in both public and private sector ethics
indicates that two concerns are important: (a) an awareness on the part of the
decisionmaker of the responsibilities to relevant constituent groups; and (b) an
adherence by the decisionmaker to moral obligations. The framework to be
presented here directly addresses both of these concerns. This framework is
less esoteric than most models in the literature and, as such, may be more
useful to the practicing public manager and easier for students to understand
and apply.

1 An earlier iteration of the Obligations by Parties (OBP) matrix was originally presented by the
authors in The Integration of Ethics into the Marketing Curriculum: An Educator's Guide [Bol et al.,
1991, chap. 2]. A detailed review of other frameworks from the literature, as well as corporate
guidelines in practice, are summarized therein. Although the original iteration takes on a different
form, its review may provide additional insight for the interested reader.

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
474 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Do no harm Improvement Equity/fairness

Internal
Superiors
Employees
Self

External and
direct
Clients
Suppliers
Lawmakers
Taxpayers
Residents
Businesses

External and
indirect
Society
Other
jurisdictions
Future
generations

Figure 1. The obligations by parties (OBP) matrix.

For a defined decisionmaking situation the OBP matrix focuses the adminis-
trator's ethical analysis by asking the general question: "What is owed to whom
in this situation?" Ethical behavior for the administrator is defined as meeting
moral obligations to parties affected by the decision. The decisionmaker must
consider each specific cell created by the intersection of the obligation and
party (stakeholder) and document what is necessary to meet that obligation
to that party. Once this process is complete, the administrator must assess the
degree to which these norms have or have not been met for each decision
alternative. Although the obligations are universal, each decision situation may
result in a different set of obligations and relevant parties. Figure 1 presents
a comprehensive example of the formulation of the OBP matrix.

Step 3: Application of the OBP Matrix

For classroom applications, students should proceed through the matrix and
make cell-by-cell judgments as to whether the specific obligation has been met
for each constituent group. Any cell not applicable to the situation under
consideration should be ignored. When this process is complete, several "prob-
lem cells" may have been identified. A problem cell is one in which one or
more specific duties have not been met or where duties to constituencies are
in conflict. The entire matrix should be inspected for each alternative and
all problem cells should be identified. Problem cells are then prioritized and
activities to eliminate the highest priority problem cell should be considered.
The administrator should continue this process until all problem cells have
been eliminated or until conflicts between problem cells preclude this possibil-
ity. The process concludes with an ethical judgment for each alternative. This
entire process is summarized in Table 2.

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Case Notes / 475

Table 2. The obligations by parties method.

1. Structure the matrix by determining the relevant parties and obligations for the
decisionmaking situation in question.
2. For each cell of the matrix, specify the administrative behaviors that will meet the
obligation to the party in question. This is the normative matrix.
3. For each alternative, identify the problem cells by comparing what has actually been
done to the normative matrix.
4. Prioritize all problem cells and consider additional actions as appropriate.
5. Make an ethical judgment about each alternative.

Classroom Applications

The matrix can be a powerful classroom learning tool. It allows students to

visualize the full range of obligations they have in a given administrative situa-
tion. The need to set priorities makes trade-offs among these obligations appar-
ent. Differences in points of view will provide for interesting and fruitful class
discussion. The need to take concrete actions to meet the most important
obligations should be emphasized.
Individual students or administrators will perceive obligations and actions
differently. This results in disparate priorities among class members or across
the organization and fosters intense discussion about what should be done.
The proposed framework does not identify a single course of action that is
most appropriate; clearly, that is not its purpose. Rather, the purpose is to
encourage individual students or administrators to approach the decision from
diverse perspectives and confront such questions as: "Is this obligation to
this group so significant that administrative action is required?" or "Is this
obligation to this group so significant that it takes precedence over obligations
to other groups?"
The authors have found this approach to be very useful. It is simple to
explain, understand, and apply to administrative situations. Most important,
students or administrators leave the encounter with a memorable tool that
may be useful to them in future decisionmaking situations for two reasons
(a) it helps the decisionmaker to understand the diverse perspectives individu-
als may bring to the dilemma; and (b) it helps clarify imperatives for ethical
action.

Clossroom Application: A Professional Dilemma

After students are exposed to the basics of moral philosophy, ethical theories,
and how to structure situations using the OBP matrix, the instructor ca
present decision problems with ethical dimensions. One classroom approac
would have students choose or be assigned an ethical dilemma. Table 2 presents
the sequence of activities for applying the OBP matrix in such a situation. For
example, suppose an administrator (student) is wrestling with whether to leak
a document she has inadvertently come upon. The decisionmaker is conflicted
because allowing the leak would significantly improve the probability that
"good" law would pass. The matrix forces the student to consider all stake
holders. Students must weigh context and ask questions like: Is the law really
good for every relevant constituency? Will any parties be harmed? Are all being

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
476 / Curriculum and Case Notes

treated fairly? Would the profession of public administration or the employing

agency be harmed if/when knowledge of the decision to leak were made public?
This type of analysis will broaden students' thinking and inevitably identify
some "problem cells" (Stage 3 in Table 2). Students must then prioritize prob-
lem cells and make ethical judgments about alternatives, in this case whether
to leak or not leak the information. Use of the matrix does not eliminate the
need to make difficult ethical judgments. It does however, force the student
or administrator to be thorough about relevant stakeholders and salient obliga-
tions in a given situation.

Classroom Application: Cose Analysis

A case can provide an application of the OBP matrix in a more complex

decisionmaking situation. The case chosen for this illustrative analysis is "Fi-
nances and Development" by Bradford J. Townsend [1996] in the popular
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Municipal Man-
agement Series, Managing Local Government Finance: Cases in Decision Mak-
ing. The case is summarized as follows. The process outlined in Table 2 is then
applied to the case situation.
Case summary. The case is set in the village of Oakwood. Three years earlier,
two manufacturing facilities had closed. John Wendall was elected mayor with
a campaign to lower taxes and increase jobs by attracting new business and
aggressively expanding village boundaries. The former police chief was ap-
pointed village manager, and Frank Schmidt, a professionally trained adminis-
trator, was appointed economic development director to accomplish these
objectives. The new village manager performed poorly, and retired in less than
a year leaving a large deficit. Schmidt was named acting manager, while Dan
LeBlanc, another experienced administrator, was hired to improve village fi-
nances and promote economic development.
LeBlanc made significant improvements in both areas. The budget deficit
was eliminated and three large development projects were identified. LeBlanc
and his staff made significant progress in bringing two of the projects to a
successful conclusion. The third project, however, raised a boundary dispute
with Petersville, a larger city to the north. The Oakwood Board of Trustees
requested that Schmidt and LeBlanc study the boundary issue. As a result,
Schmidt and LeBlanc proposed a boundary that was favorable to Oakwood and
provided cost-benefit analyses to support their plan. The initial negotiations
between mayors, attorneys, and managers of both municipalities resulted in
only minor modifications to this boundary.
At this point Mayor Wendall changed Oakwood's negotiation strategy. For
the final round of negotiations, only the mayors and attorneys would be in-
volved. These negotiations produced an annexation plan that substantially
reduced land available to Oakwood. LeBlanc's cost-benefit analysis of this new
plan indicated that it was much less favorable to Oakwood than the original
boundary proposal. LeBlanc shared his concerns about the new plan privately
with Mayor Wendall and the board of trustees.
Notwithstanding LeBlanc's concerns, Mayor Wendall will ask the board of
trustees for formal approval of his plan at a public meeting in a few hours.
LeBlanc will attend the meeting, and Wendall has told LeBlanc that he should
speak in favor of the mayor's plan at the meeting or "shut up." As he prepares
for the meeting, the case concludes with four courses of action available to

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Case Notes / 477

LeBlanc:

1. Present the cost-benefit results for both proposals in a matter-of-fact

manner.

2. Revise assumptions in the cost-benefit analysis of the mayor

improve the results.
3. Take the mayor's advice and shut up and let Schmidt or other
the staff position.
4. Present the cost-benefit results for both proposals without modi
and express concern about the mayor's plan.

OBP analysis. The first step in the analytic process (see Table 2) is to
the OBP matrix. For this illustrative application, the obligations will
harm, improvement, and equity/fairness (as previously defined). The
parties would be Mayor Wendall, the Oakwood Board of Trustee
Manager Schmidt, LeBlanc himself, the taxpayers of Oakwood, an
generations of Oakwood citizens. The second step is to create the
matrix by specifying the administrative behaviors that are necessary
these obligations for each party. Table 3 is a completed normati
for LeBlanc's decision situation, as it might develop in a class di
Alternatively, students might each be asked to fill out the matrix as p
for class. An aggregation/reconciliation of different cell contents mi
for a more focused discussion. The matrix is then used as a basis for discussion
assessing each of the four alternatives.
For the first alternative (present cost-benefit results for both proposals in a
matter-of-fact manner at the meeting), LeBlanc has met all obligations to the
mayor, the board, and the village manager. He has not, however, met all
obligations to the taxpayers of Oakwood, or future residents of the village.
With this option he would not warn taxpayers about possible negative conse-
quences (do no harm), nor would he provide truthful and complete information
to them (equity/fairness). Furthermore, there is a real risk that areas of expan-
sion will not be preserved for future generations (improvement). These are
high-priority problem cells that will require resolution before a decision can
be made.
The second alternative (revise assumptions in the cost-benefit analysis of
the mayor's plan to improve the results) in effect "cooks the books" in favor
of the mayor's plan to improve the results. This is perhaps the easiest option
to evaluate ethically because virtually every cell in the matrix becomes a prob-
lem cell. To resolve all of the problem cells is not possible for this alternative.
The third alternative (take the mayor's advice and shut up and let Schmidt
or others present the staff position) in effect "passes the buck" to others,
especially Schmidt. This action does not demonstrate loyalty to his superior
and colleague, Schmidt (equity/fairness), nor does it show professional support
(improvement). Furthermore, the same problem cells identified for the first
alternative would emerge given that obligations to taxpayers (do not harm and
equity/fairness) and future generations (improvement) would not be met by
him. Schmidt, or others, may do the right thing, but it is the morality of
LeBlanc's behavior that is at issue here. As with the first alternative, these
problem cells would require resolution.
The final alternative (present the cost-benefit results for both proposals
without modification and express concern about the mayor's plan) is the most

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
478 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Table 3. Illustrative normative matrix.

Do no harm Improvement Equity/fairness

* Inform and warn
Mayor Wendall * Show respect for
* Provide objective
of possible nega- and accurate infor-
person and office
tive consequences * Be honest in all
mation for deci-
* Refrain from pub- sionmaking dealings
lic criticism * Provide best* pro-
Show loyalty to
fessional judg-person and office
ment for a range
of policy options
Oakwood Board * Inform and warn * Show respect for
* Respond to re-
of Trustees of possible nega- all members
quests for informa-
tive consequences * Be honest in all
tion in a timely
* Minimize public fashion dealings
criticism of board * Provide objective
* Show loyalty to all
members
and accurate infor-
mation for deci-
sionmaking
* Provide best pro-
fessional judgment
Village Manager* Inform and warn * Provide objective * Show loyalty to
Schmidt of possible nega- and accurate infor- his superior
tive consequences mation * Show loyalty to
* Provide best pro- his colleague
fessional judgment* Keep informed
* Provide profes- about situation
sional support as
needed

Himself * Maintain good re- * Meet/exceed per- * Be aware of other

(LeBlanc) lationships with formance expecta- professional
superiors tions of superiors opportunities
* Meet/exceed all rel-
evant professional
norms

* Upgrade/expand
professional capa-
bilities

Taxpayers of * Inform and warn * Provide for effi- * Provide truthful

Oakwood taxpayers of possi- cient financing of and complete
ble negative conse- necessary services information
quences of pend- * Protect/expand
ing issues current tax base
* Provide employ-
ment opportu-
nities

Future * Seek support from * Preserve areas for * Build community

generations appropriate pub- future expansion interest in re-
lic and nonpublic * Protect long-term source conser-
sources tax base vation

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Case Notes / 479

morally acceptable alternative. There are, however, problem cells for this alter-
native. It could be argued that this alternative does not show loyalty to the
mayor (equity/fairness), and that this action will not necessarily minimize
public criticism of the board (do not harm). Notwithstanding these problem
cells, virtually all other obligations have been met to all remaining parties.
Furthermore, the resolution of these problem cells would create many addi-
tional and, arguably, more important problem cells.
The analysis suggests the following ranking of the alternatives in terms of
their ethical acceptability:

1. Present the cost-benefit results for both proposals without modification

and express concern about the mayor's plan.
2. Present the cost-benefit results for both proposals in a matter-of-fact
manner.

3. Take the mayor's advice and shut up and let Schmidt or other
the staff position.
4. Revise the assumptions in the cost-benefit analysis of the ma
to improve the results.

The classroom instructor should not expect all students to agree

ranking. The students' judgment will be affected by their normative m
well as their own idiosyncratic priorities and ethical philosophies. As
earlier, the real power of this method of ethical analysis is that it pr
common frame of reference for all students to view the moral situatio
at the end of the discussion, either consensus within the class can be
or reasons for differences better understood.
Although the framework is nominally focused on the intentions of the actors
(a deontological perspective), it can easily be used to accommodate alternative
ethical theories. For example, a teleological perspective would project the costs
of harm (see Figure 1) in column 1 against the benefits of improvement in
column 2 for the complete range of stakeholders and then make a utilitarian
judgment. Not only does this action disregard the intentions of the actors, but
it also relies heavily on the ability of the decisionmaker to accurately project
outcomes. These realizations help students see the inherent assumptions and
weaknesses in each position as they play out a decision under each ethical
philosophy.

Final Comment

The use of any framework does not generate or guarantee ethical behavior,
nor does it predict or explain the incidence of unethical behavior that can
occur in administrative settings. Moreover, the use of frameworks as mere
"checklists" to reason through an ethical issue misses the point. This use would
convey to administrators and students that ethics is nothing more than a
mechanical attempt to satisfy certain criteria. On the contrary, ethical deci-
sionmaking requires the consideration of and the resolution of conflict among
a wide array of constituents and moral obligations. Use of the OBP framework
can help students and administrators to focus on key ethical elements that
lead to more enlightened decisionmaking.

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
480 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Table A.1. Selected ethical philosophies.

Schools of
thought Culture-based Utility-based Rule-based
Advocates William Sumner John Stuart Mill William Ross [1930],
[1906], Ruth Bene- [1861], Jeremy Ben- John Rawls [1971],
dict [1946], See Kai tham [1789] Immanuel Kant
Nielsen [1966] [1959 translation]
Major * Emphasizes local * Emphasizes ends, * Emphasizes con-
premises norms/taboos goals, or purposes cerns for duty or
* Cost-benefit
* Ethics is culture-spe- moral obligation
cific analysis * People should be-
* There are no abso- * Concern for the have in accordance
lute truths greatest good for with specific rules
the greatest number of behavior that
of people either uncondition-
* Primary focus on ally guide their be-
the consequences of havior (Kant) or
actions conditionally guide
their behavior
(Rawls)
Criticisms * Discounts the no- * Disregards the inten-* Generally not con-
tion of universally tions of the action cerned with the con-
applicable rules of * Maximizes harm to sequences of the
behavior the smallest constit- action in question
* Used as justification uent group * Unyielding in all
for violations of the * Consequences and situations
precepts of the probabilities of con-
other two schools sequences must be
anticipated
Academic * Cultural relativism * Teleological models * Deontological
titles or consequentialist models

Appendix

Conceptually Distinctive Categories of Ethical Analysis

Drawing from the classification schemes cited in the references, a modest

consensus emerges for three major schools of thought for ethical analysis.2
These include: (a) cultural relativist-based models; (b) consequence-based
models; and (c) rule-based models [see Gandz and Hayes, 1988]. Ethical dilem-
mas may be addressed using one or a combination of these three "schools"
(see Table A. 1):
The first school, cultural relativism, contends that there are no universal
standards by which behaviors can be evaluated. Consequently, ethical behavior
is culture specific. The ethicality of a certain behavior will depend upon the

2 In the interest of parsimony, this review excludes discussions of market-oriented views, stoicism,
ethical egoism, communitarianism, some rights-oriented views, and other theories that would
merit discussion in a more lengthy monograph. For a fuller discussion of these views, the reader
is encouraged to consult the references.

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Case Notes / 481

culture in which it takes place. Out of this philosophy has come the adage,
"When in Rome, do as the Romans," as a justification for behaviors which
might otherwise violate the norms of the two approaches discussed next.
The second school, utilitarianism, posits an analytical approach that weighs
the costs of an action against the benefits of that action. This theory belongs
to the school of thought referred to as consequentialism. Utilitarians, such as
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, advocate the choice of the alternative
which offers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. This ap-
proach has been criticized because it fails to take into consideration the inten-
tions of the actors in the dilemma. Moreover, utilitarianism is criticized because
the converse of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people may be
the greatest harm to the smallest group, which raises issues that are directly
addressed by rule-based models.
The third school, rule-based models, is derived from a sense that certain
behaviors are morally correct. Supporters such as Immanuel Kant, William
Ross, and John Rawls contend that a set of principles should guide one's
behavior, and that actions should be judged based on their intentions, rather
than their consequences. For example, John Rawls [1971] argued that two
rules should serve as a guide for ethical behavior: the liberty principle and the
difference principle (p. 60ff). They can be summarized as follows:

1. The liberty principle states that each person is to have an equal right to
the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.
2. The difference principle states that social and economic inequalities are
to be arranged so that they are both, on the margin, to the greatest benefit
of the least advantaged.

The liberty principle advocates basic freedoms, whereas the difference princi-
ple identifies rules that should be used when freedoms exercised under the
liberty principle come into conflict. Table A. 1 contrasts each of these schools
in terms of their leading advocates, their major premises, the criticisms of
their particular ethical philosophy, and the academic titles often used for
each philosophy.

JOHN R. WALTON is Associate Professor of Marketing at Miami University.

JAMES M. STEARNS is Associate Professor of Marketing at Miami University.
CHARLES T. CRESPY is Professor of Marketing at Miami University.

REFERENCES

Benedict, Ruth (1946), Patterns of Culture (New York: Pelican Books).

Bentham, Jeremy (1789), Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Education.
Bergenson, Peter J. (1992), "Ethics and Public Policy: An Analysis of a Research Tradi-
tion," International Journal of Public Administration 15(7), pp. 1369-1396.
Bol, Jan Willem, Charles Crespy, James Stears, and John Walton (1991), The Integration
of Ethics into the Marketing Curriculum: An Educator's Guide (Needham, MA: Ginn
Press).
Bowman, James S. (1990), "Ethics in Government: A National Survey of Public Adminis-
trators," Public Administration Review 50(3), pp. 345-353.

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
482 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Bowman, James S. (1991), Ethical Frontiers in Public Management: Seeking New Strate-
gies for Resolving Ethical Dilemmas (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Brady, F. Neil and Gary M. Woller (1996), "Administration Ethics and Judgments of
Utility: Reconciling the Competing Theories," American Review of Public Administra-
tion 26(3), pp. 309-326.
Burton, Lloyd (1990), "Ethical Discontinuities in Public-Private Sector Negotiation,"
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 9(1), pp. 23-40.
Cleary, Robert E. (1990), "What Do Public Administration Masters Programs Look
Like? Do They Do What Is Needed?" presented at the 1990 National Association of
Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) Annual Meeting, Salt Lake
City, Utah (Reprinted by NASPAA, 1990, Washington, DC).
Frederickson, H. George (1990), "Public Administration and Social Equity," Public
Administration Review 50(2), pp. 228-237.
Frederickson, H. George (1994), "Can Public Officials Correctly Be Said to Have Obliga-
tions to Future Generations?" Public Administration Review 54(5), pp. 457-464.
Freeman, R. Edward (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston:
Pitman).
Gandz, Jeffrey and Nadine Hayes (1988), "Teaching Business Ethics," Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics 7, pp. 657-669.
Guy, Mary E. (1990), Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situations (Westport,
CT: Quorum Books).
Hejka-Ekins, April (1988), "Teaching Ethics in Public Administration," Public Adminis-
tration Review 48(5), pp. 885-891.
Kant, Immanuel (1959), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Lewis
White Beck (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill).
Lee, Dalton S. and Susan Paddock (1992), "Improving the Effectiveness of Teaching
Public Administration Ethics," Public Productivity and Management Review XV(4),
pp. 487-500.
Lewis, Carol W. (1991), The Ethics Challenge in Public Service (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass).
Lewis, Carol W. and Bayard L. Catron (1996), "Professional Standards and Ethics," in
James L. Perry (ed.), Handbook of Public Administration (San Francisco: Jossey Bass).
Marini, Frank (1992), "Literature and Public Administration Ethics," American Review
of Public Administration 22(2), pp. 111-125.
Menson, Thomas P. (1990), "Ethics and State Budgeting," Public Budgeting and Finance
10(1), pp. 95-108.
Mill, John Stuart (1861), Utilitarianism (London).
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) (1992),
Standards for Professional Master's Degree Programs in Public Affairs and Administra-
tion (Washington, DC: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Adminis-
tration).
Nielsen, Kai (1966), "Ethical Relativism and the Facts of Cultural Relativity," Social
Research 33, pp. 531-551.
Rachaels, James (1986), Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Robin, Donald P. and Eric Reidenbach (1987), "Social Responsibility, Ethics, and
Marketing Strategy: Closing the Gap Between Concept and Application," Journal of
Marketing 51(1), pp. 44-58.
Ross, William D. (1930), The Right and the Good (Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-
sity Press).
Sumner, William G. (1906), Folkways (Boston: Ginn and Company).

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Curriculum and Case Notes / 483

Townsend, Bradford J. (1996), "Finances and Development," in James Banovetz (ed.),

Managing Local Government Finance: Cases in Decision Making, (Washington, DC):
International City/County Management Association).
Van Wart, Montgomery (1995), "The First Step in the Reinvention Process: Assessment,"
Public Administration Review 55(5), pp. 429-438.

This content downloaded from 202.92.153.2 on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:48:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms