Codes of Good Governance

Public Integrity
ISSN: 1099-9922 (Print) 1558-0989 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mpin20
Codes of Good Governance

National or Global Public Values?
Torben Beck Jørgensen & Ditte-Lene Sørensen
To cite this article: Torben Beck Jørgensen & Ditte-Lene Sørensen (2012) Codes of Good
Governance, Public Integrity, 15:1, 71-96, DOI: 10.2753/PIN1099-9922150104
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922150104
Published online: 08 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 535
View related articles
Citing articles: 16 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mpin20
Research Article
Codes of Good
Governance
National or Global Public
Values?
Torben Beck Jørgensen and
Ditte-Lene Sørensen
Abstract
Good governance is a broad concept used by many international organizations to spell
out how states or countries should be governed. Definitions vary, but there is a clear
core of common public values, such as transparency, accountability, effectiveness,
and the rule of law. It is quite likely, however, that national views of good gover-
nance reflect different political cultures and institutional heritages. Fourteen national
codes of conduct are analyzed. The findings suggest that public values converge and
that they match model codes from the United Nations and the European Council
as well as conceptions of good governance from other international organizations.
While values converge, they are balanced and communicated differently, and seem
to some extent to be translated into the national cultures. The set of global public
values derived from this analysis include public interest, regime dignity, transparency,
neutrality, impartiality, effectiveness, accountability, and legality. The normative
context of public administration, as expressed in codes, seems to ignore the New
Public Management and Reinventing Government reform movements.
O good old man, how well in thee appears

The constant service of the antique world,
When service sweat for duty, not for meed!
Thou art not for the fashion of these times,
Where none will sweat but for promotion,
And having that, do choke their service up
Even with the having: it is not so with thee.
(Shakespeare, As You Like It, II, iii)
What is good governance?

As Shakespeare’s Orlando expresses it, good governance entailed servants sweat-
ing for duty, not for meed or promotion. As the discussion that follows will show,
modern conceptions of good governance—nationally and globally—are surprisingly
close to Orlando’s view despite the New Public Management (NPM) and Reinvent-
ing Government reform movements.
Public Integrity, Winter 2012–13, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 71–95.
© 2013 ASPA. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1099–9922 (print)/ISSN 1558–0989 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/PIN1099-9922150104
Torben Beck Jørgensen and Ditte-Lene Sørensen
The term “good governance” is today used by international organizations such as

the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations (UN), and the
European Union (EU). These organizations use the term in very different contexts,
ranging from financial assistance to developing countries to evaluations of countries
seeking membership in the European Union. The OECD defines good governance
as governance “characterised by participation, transparency, accountability, rule of
law, effectiveness, equity, etc.” (OECD 2006, 1). With minor variations, these values
are reiterated by other international organizations. The OECD‘s Public Management
(PUMA) project adds technical and managerial competence and organizational capac-
ity to the list; the IMF stresses the importance of tackling corruption; the World Bank
finds political stability and absence of violence/terrorism worth mentioning; the UN
adds consensus orientation; and finally, the EU accession criteria (the Copenhagen
criteria) include democracy, human rights, and respect and protection of minorities.1
The orientation and context vary, but there is clearly a common core of public values,
such as transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and the rule of law.
Given these official declarations of good governance by key international organi-
zations, it is tempting to conclude that there is a set of global public values. However,
national conceptions of good governance may very well reflect diverging political
cultures and institutional heritages, and it has been argued that the real challenge is
to develop general, abstract values despite these cultural differences (Gilman and
Lewis 1999). The purpose of this article is to explore national conceptions of good
governance and see whether they converge and whether there is a match with the
international conceptions.
At the heart of good governance is the notion of public values (Kernaghan 2003).
Public values can be defined as the ideals, articulated as principles, to be followed
when producing a public service or regulating citizens’ behavior, thus providing
direction to the behavior of public servants (Beck Jørgensen and Andersen 2011).
According to Bozeman (2007, 13), public values specify ”the rights, benefits and
prerogatives to which citizens should (and should not) be entitled, the obligations
of citizens to society, the state and one another; and the principles on which govern-
ments and policies should be based.” The latter institutional element in the definition
is important, as it indicates how values are the basic building blocks of the public
sector (Beck Jørgensen 1999, 581).
Studying public values in countries throughout the world represents a costly chal-
lenge if it implies carrying out detailed studies of value expressions, including actual
behavior, in many different countries. Actually, there have been only a few detailed
empirical investigations, and they cover a very limited number of countries (Beck
Jørgensen and Andersen 2011). There is, however, one possible shortcut: selecting
and studying codes of conduct.2 Codes of conduct are used in countries all over the
world and increasingly focus on the proper role of the state, its public sector, and civil
servants in general. Such a canon is referred to as a code of good governance.
In this article, a sampling of codes from various countries will be analyzed. Time
and space restrictions prevent delving into the details of any single code, its prov-
enance, and the political-administrative culture of the country it represents. More-
over, it is important to note that these documents certainly cannot be equated with
behavior, for as Gilman (2005, 16) notes, “any code without an effective institutional
implementation strategy is just words.” But the selected codes may, nevertheless,
72 • public integrity winter 2012–13

be interesting as statements of preferred behavior. Thus, the code is in focus as a

text, and the main purpose here is to identify the public values inherent in codes of
good governance by asking: (1) What kinds of public values regarding the role of
the public sector in society and the behavior of its civil servants are displayed in
national codes of good governance? (2) Are national codes of good governance so
similar that they most likely reflect a set of global public values, or do the variations
between the codes suggest that they reflect unique national public values?

Empirical Focus
Codes of conduct have been used since far back in history as instruments for so-
cializing norms and values, whether of a religious, professional, or civic character.
The Ten Commandments, the Hippocratic oath, and Pericles’ Athenian code offer
notable examples. However, the widespread use of codes in the public sector is a
relatively new phenomenon. As noted by Kernaghan (2003), the United States and the
Westminster countries entered an “ethics era” during the mid-1960s, and since then
a number of global and regional initiatives have been taken to create international
ethics standards, such as the Lima Declaration in 1997, the Global Forum on Fighting
Corruption in 1999, the Global Coalition for Africa, and the Anti-Corruption Initia-
tive for Asia-Pacific (Cooper and Yoder 2002). By the beginning of the twenty-first
century, codes had been introduced in many countries throughout the world.
Codes express a vision of excellence. They provide ideals and values to strive for
and indicate situations to be avoided (Gilman 2005). Like taking an oath (Rutgers
2009), these ideals and values are expected to refer to matters above the individual’s
private life, to behavior in one’s official capacity.
A code is usually understood to be a collection of rules and principles expected
to be followed by a group of people. This group can be large and general (e.g., civil
servants) or small and specific (certain public officeholders, senior civil servants,
professionals working in sensitive areas like law enforcement, judiciary, defense,
taxation, and customs, and professionals with a tradition of self-regulation like doc-
tors and lawyers) (OECD 2008).
As opposed to legal rules, codes do not specify very detailed rules. While related
sanctions can be mentioned, they do not constitute the core of a code. In Pericles’
apt phrasing, codes, even unwritten ones, refer to proper conduct that “cannot be
broken without acknowledged disgrace” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponne-
sian War II. xxxvii. 3). Instead, codes usually present a coherent sense of expected
behavior that is more detailed than abstract phrases such as “Righteousness exalts
a nation” (Proverbs 14:34). Code-writers therefore face the challenge of balancing,
as mentioned in the first report of the Nolan Committee (1995, 38):
We share the view of those who warn against unduly detailed and prescriptive rules,
but we also consider that it is unreasonable to expect that the view of every Member
of Parliament of what is and is not acceptable will produce without guidance a univer-
sally acceptable standard.
This also means that codes differ in specificity. They can focus on those values
and principles that in general terms define the role of the civil servant, or they can
public integrity winter 2012–13 • 73

focus on the application of such values and principles in specific situations (e.g.,
conflict-of-interest situations, such as receiving gifts or benefits, and postpublic
employment). Some codes combine general values and standards on how to put them
into practice (OECD 2008). If fairly detailed, a code is labeled as compliance-based
(e.g., the Justinian Code, the U.S. Guide to Senior Executive Service Qualifications),
as opposed to the less detailed codes that are labeled as integrity-based (e.g., the
seven principles of the Nolan Committee).3
Only a few comparative, empirical investigations of codes have been carried out,
and the focus has usually been limited to a region, as in the case of the new Eastern Eu-
ropean democracies (see Palidauskaite 2011), or to a specific political-administrative
tradition, such as the Westminster systems (see Kernaghan 2003). For the present
study, sixteen codes of good governance were selected (Appendix 1). The selection
followed several criteria. First, the chosen codes are from countries belonging to dif-
ferent political-administrative traditions and regions. Identified similarities despite
national variations are therefore good indicators of a set of global public values.
Following the usual grouping of countries (Kickert 2005), the codes are from
Southern Europe (Italy, 2001; Spain, 2005), the Nordic region (Denmark, 2005,
2007; Norway, 2005), Eastern Europe (the former communist states Estonia, 1999;
Poland, 2002; Romania, 2004), and the Anglo-Saxon countries (Canada, 2003;
New Zealand, 2001; United Kingdom, 2006). In order to secure representation that
was not solely from Western democracies, codes from three countries with unique
traditions and backgrounds are included in the analysis (Korea, 2003; South Africa,
1999; Turkey, 2005).4 In addition, two “model codes” issued, respectively, by the
United Nations (1996) and the European Council (2000) were selected in order to
investigate whether their prescriptions differ from the national codes.
Since it is crucial that the codes represent the national level, the selected documents
can be classified either as general codes for the public sector or as codes for public
managers or civil servants in the public sector or in central government. Thus, codes for
regional and local governments and for professions or very specific groups of employ-
ees are not included. Finally, the codes were expected to present contemporary public
values. They were recently drafted—thirteen codes were issued since 2000—and the
requirements for drafting and redrafting were few compared to the formal legislation
regulating public employee behavior, not to mention constitutions.5
Public Values Approach

Identifying the values mentioned in codes of good governance and their relative
importance requires that one have some idea about which values might be relevant
and how to index value importance. Our efforts in this respect are based on the
Beck Jørgensen–Bozeman Public Value Inventory (Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman
2007), because the model identifies both a comprehensive list of values from the
literature and a typology of public values in major value constellations (see Figure
1). The public values in these value constellations are shown in Table 1 and further
divided into subgroupings. These values will be searched for in the codes of good
governance.
The following steps were taken in order to identify values and assess their im-
portance. First, the model was tested on a test-code in order to see whether it could

Figure 1
Structure of Public Values Universe.

*HQHUDO 7KHFRQWULEXWLRQRIWKH7UDQVIRUPDWLRQRI
VRFLHW\ SXEOLFVHFWRUWRVRFLHW\ LQWHUHVWVWRGHFLVLRQ

3ROLWLFLDQV

3XEOLFDGPLQLVWUDWLRQ

7KHHQYLURQPHQW ,QWHUQDOIXQFWLRQDQGRUJDQL]DWLRQ
3XEOLFHPSOR\HHV

&LWL]HQVXVHUVFXVWRPHUV

capture the entire value universe. Second, a quantitative double-coding (which val-
ues are mentioned, how many times) was performed. The quantitative coding was
followed by a qualitative reading of all of the codes in order to (1) identify value
statements communicated indirectly, and (2) estimate the relative importance of
identified values by analyzing their relational properties, namely, proximity (neigh-
boring values), hierarchy (prime and instrumental values), and causality (covalues)
(see Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman 2007, 369–373). Finally, the importance of each
given value in the given code was indexed.
This procedure does not guarantee that a cultural bias has been avoided success-
fully. First, the typology may introduce a bias because the values were selected from
Western political science/public administration literature. Second, the two authors
of the present article come from the same Western country. Third, values are very
intangible phenomena, difficult to identify and measure, and highly context-sensitive,
because the same value can be interpreted quite differently in different countries.
These methodological problems were approached by applying highly specific coding
and by citing directly from the codes. This gives the reader an opportunity to grasp
the normative world of the codes and to follow the interpretations (see Appendix 2
for a more detailed account of the methods used).
Public Values Convergence

The differences among the codes seem astonishing at first sight. The length varies
from the Canadian Value and Ethics Code (43 pages, illustrated) to the Estonian

Table 1
Constellations, Subgroups, and Public Values
Value constellation Public values
1. Public sector’s contribution Public interest, common good, social cohesion

to society Altruism, human dignity
Sustainability, voice of the future
Regime dignity, regime stability
2. Transformation of interests Majority rule, democracy, will of the people, collective
to decisions choice
User democracy, local governance, citizen involvement
Protection of minorities, protection of individual rights
3. Relationship between Political loyalty, accountability, responsiveness
administrators and politicians
4. Relationship between Openness, responsiveness, listening to public opinion,
public administrators and secrecy
their environment Neutrality, impartiality compromise, balancing of inter-
ests, advocacy
Competitiveness, cooperativeness
5. Intraorganizational aspects Robustness, adaptability, stability, reliability, timeliness
of public administration Innovation, enthusiasm, risk-readiness
Effectiveness, productivity, parsimony, businesslike
approach
Self-development of employees, good working
environment
6. Behavior of public sector Accountability, professionalism, honesty, moral stan-
employees dards, ethical consciousness, integrity,
7. Relationship between public Rule of law, legality, protection of individual rights,
administration and citizens equal treatment, justice
Equity, reasonableness, fairness, professionalism
Dialogue, responsiveness, user democracy, citizen
involvement, citizens’ self-development
User orientation, friendliness, timeliness
Note: Adapted from Beck Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007, 360–361).
Public Service Code of Ethics (1¼ pages consisting of 20 very brief sentences).
The language also varies. The Canadian and New Zealand codes are written in an
essayistic style, presenting value families, text boxes, and core values addressing the
citizen as well as the public servant, while the Italian code, among others, is quite
legalistic and occasionally very specific (“In handling cases he/she shall observe
their chronological order”). The Turkish code is somewhere between Southern Eu-
ropean dry legalism and an Anglo-Saxon literary touch. The cultural context varies.
The Korean code focuses strongly on gifts, acknowledges special circumstances like
congratulations and condolences, and refers to religious organizations and friendly
societies, thereby reflecting a civic culture and organization that hardly is Northern
European. Finally, the codes communicate quite differently. The Canadian code dis-
plays a maple leaf and the Peace Tower of the Canadian parliament buildings on its
front page. Norway and Denmark display a mountain stream and a spring flower, re-
spectively. In contrast, Spain and Poland present their codes as ministerial orders.
When the codes are examined systematically, using the methods mentioned in
the previous section, the opposite picture surfaces: National public values tend to

converge and form a set of global public values. The brief overview presented in
the sections below is followed by more detailed examples of the value expressions
categorized in the major value constellations.
Overview
Table 2 provides insight into which value constellations are considered most impor-
tant in codes of good governance, based on the quantitative analysis. As can be seen,
values related to public servants (constellation 6) are considered most important in
each code. This is hardly a surprise, given that the selected standards are guidelines
for employee behavior. Nevertheless, it emphasizes the importance of individual
behavior as a key to good governance. Note also that values related to the relation-
ship between the administration and citizens or users (constellation 7) constitute
the second or third most important category in thirteen codes, and that fourteen
codes emphasize either the contribution of the public sector to society (constellation
1) or the relationship between the administration and its immediate surroundings
(constellation 4) as the second or third most important category.
In sum, the emphasis is on public employees and their relations to the public sector
environment, whether referred to in terms of society, citizens/users, or immediate
surroundings. Little emphasis is given to how societal interests are converted to
political-administrative decisions (constellation 2) or the relationship between politi-
cians and the administration (constellation 3). What differences there are between
the countries appear rather modest.
Following the Beck Jørgensen–Bozeman scheme (2007, 360–361), the next step
involves the analysis of the importance of subgroups of values within the single con-
stellation. Table 3 shows the results when the quantitative analysis is combined with
the qualitative reading of the codes and the analysis of relations between values.
The following subsections present examples of characteristic public value expres-
sions from each value constellation.
Constellation 1: Contribution of the Public Sector to Society

Two values appear as nodal values: the public interest and regime dignity. Several
other values in the codes relate to the public interest. For example, impartiality,
innovation, effectiveness, transparency, altruism, democracy, and legality are men-
tioned as instrumental values to public interest as a prime value, and public interest
is often ranked as the top value in a value hierarchy, as, for example, in the Spanish
and South African codes:
Decision-taking shall always seek to satisfy the general interests of citizens and shall
be based on objective considerations focused on the common interest, regardless of
any other factor implying personal, family, corporate, client-based positions or any
others which might collide with this principle. (Spain)
An employee . . . puts the public interest first in the execution of his or her duties.
(South Africa)
The sincerity of the public interest is sharpened in the Estonian code: “An of-
ficial shall be prepared to make unpopular decisions in the public interest.” Regime

78 •
Table 2
Indexed Distribution of Values on Value Constellations
Constellation CA DK2 DK ER ES EST GB IT KR NO NZ PO RO SA TY UN
1. Contribution of public sector to

society 15 6 7 7 13 21 3 11 4 11 10 17 16 14 9 20
2. Transformation of interests to
decisions 5 3 3 4 3 3 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 4
3. Relationship between public

administrators and politicians 8 3 15 7 4 8 12 0 2 9 14 9 4 4 2 0
public integrity winter 2012–13

administrators and their
environment 13 19 18 11 19 8 17 10 6 22 12 7 13 7 13 12
5. Intraorganizational aspects of
public administration 12 13 17 8 6 5 11 7 13 11 12 16 9 19 10 16
6. Behavior of public employees 31 32 23 41 33 36 48 50 72 32 37 38 37 39 34 28
administration and citizens 16 24 17 21 22 21 9 20 4 13 15 10 21 16 32 20
Table 3
Importance of Value Subgroups Within Value Constellations
Constellation with
subgroups CA DK2 DK ER ES EST GB IT KR NO NZ PO RO SA TY UN
Public interest                
1 Altruism         
Sustainability
Regime dignity                
Majority rule           
2 User democracy 
Protection of   
minorities
3 Political loyalty              
Openness               
4 Neutrality                
Competitiveness  
Robustness           
5 Innovation     
Effectiveness               
Self-development of        

employees
•
79
(continues)
80
Table 3 (Continued)
•
Constellation with
subgroups CA DK2 DK ER ES EST GB IT KR NO NZ PO RO SA TY UN
6 Accountability                
Rule of law                
7 Equity           
Dialogue           
User orientation            
Notes: Each subgroup is labeled by the first value mentioned in that subgroup. For example, the subgroup “accountability” constellation (6) consists of accountability, profession-
alism, honesty, moral standards, ethical consciousness, and integrity.
Key
= not mentioned.
 = mentioned superficially.
 = mentioned directly in several contexts.

 = nodal value, mentioned several times and with strong relations to a number of other values (instrumental, neighboring, subordinate).
dignity is linked to values such as reliability, trust, integrity, impartiality, democracy,

ethical consciousness, legality, and transparency. As stated briefly and boldly in the
introduction to the New Zealand code, “the strength of any government system lies
in the extent to which it deserves and holds the respect of its citizens.” A central part
of regime dignity concerns the image of the public sector or the state as clarified in
the Norwegian and Romanian codes—the latter with a touch of marketing:
The individual employee is required to perform his or her duties and behave in an
ethical manner, and thus avoid damaging the State’s reputation. (Norway)
The civil servants that represent the public authority or institution at international
organizations, education institutions, conferences, seminars and other activities shall
promote an image favorable to Romania and to the public authority or institution they
represent. (Romania)
Constellation 2: Transformation of Interests to Decisions

As already shown, this constellation is only weakly represented in the codes. When
referred to, however, democracy is clearly the favorite. The Canadian code puts
democracy up front:
The Public Service of Canada is an important national institution, part of the essential
framework of Canadian parliamentary democracy. Through the support they provide
to the duly constituted government, public servants contribute in a fundamental way
to good government, to democracy and to Canadian society.
Public administration and employees are related in the same way to democracy
in the preamble of the code from the European Council: “Considering that public
administrations play an essential role in democratic societies and that they must
have at their disposal suitable personnel to carry out properly the tasks which are
assigned to them.”
Constellation 3: Relationship Between Administrators and Politicians

Political loyalty is closely related to democracy, neutrality, legality, and impartiality.
The Danish code for chief executives underscores loyalty in this manner: “It is your
responsibility to ensure that the management and staff of the organization are aware
of and understand the political goals and intentions, and that they pursue these goals.”
The Norwegian code adds the shifting political circumstances: “Civil servants should
also acknowledge that they must be capable of working under changing political re-
gimes.” The New Zealand code agrees and implicitly clarifies that despite conflicting
loyalties, the minister is the most important person: “Public servants . . . are as much
servants of democracy as they are of the government of the day or their fellow citizens
. . . Public servants are obliged to serve the aims and objectives of the Minister.”
Constellation 4: Relationship Between Administrators and Their Immediate

Surroundings
Constellation 4 is quite important and includes three nodal values: openness (or
transparency), impartiality, and neutrality. Openness is mentioned with other values

such as legality, responsiveness, regime dignity, and public insight, and thus occurs
with rather different meanings. Openness ultimately refers to active acceptance of
external critique, as found in the Norwegian code:
The principles of transparency and the citizenry’s scrutiny of the public service re-
quire that the general public has insight into circumstances worthy of criticism in the
public service. In some cases, this means that public officials must be able to give the
general public factual information about matters involving wrongdoing.
Openness in this sense is obviously also linked to legality. Openness understood

as being responsive is a far less popular guest in the codes. In fact, listening to public
opinion is only briefly mentioned in two codes.
Impartiality and neutrality are standard values in codes for good governance, and
the two values often seem to appear as synonyms (despite not being identical). With
one exception—the Danish code for chief executives—one of the two or the two
together are mentioned in all the codes. Impartiality (or neutrality) can be mentioned
specifically, as in the European Council code: “The public official should act in a
politically neutral manner.” Or mixed up with other values, as in the Italian code:
“The principles and contents of the present
The values opposite to openness and code constitute exemplary specifications of
the requirements of diligence, faithfulness
impartiality/neutrality—secrecy and
and impartiality that characterize the correct
advocacy, respectively—are rarely performance of the employee’s work obliga-
mentioned. tions.”
The values opposite to openness and im-
partiality/neutrality—secrecy and advocacy, respectively—are rarely mentioned.
This is interesting for several reasons. Secrecy is an important part of the rule of law;
all states handle information of a confidential nature, and as openness is encouraged,
the concern for secrecy and privacy is likely to increase (Ball 2009). Similarly, the
codes do not acknowledge that many public organizations, if not all, are established
in order to defend and advocate certain values and policy purposes. It is as if secrecy
and advocacy were considered taboo values.
Constellation 5: Intraorganizational Aspects of Public Administration

Constellation 5 has four subgroups. The subgroup on economy values is mentioned in
fifteen codes. Note that not only is effectiveness considered more important than pro-
ductivity, a businesslike approach, and parsimony, but the meaning of effectiveness
is very broad and in only a few instances linked to a modern businesslike approach.
What is called for is a proper, accountable use of public money and property.
The following examples illustrate the variety of interpretations of economy val-
ues and how economy values are contextualized or related as instrumental values
to other (terminal) values:
Public servants shall endeavour to ensure the proper, effective and efficient use of
public money. (Canada)
An official shall treat property entrusted to him or her economically, expediently and
prudently. (Estonia)

Public officials shall ensure that they perform their duties and functions efficiently,
effectively and with integrity, in accordance with laws or administrative policies.
(UN)
. . . he/she undertakes to carry these tasks out in the simplest and most efficient man-
ner possible in the interests of the citizens and assumes the responsibility related to
his/her duties. (Italy)
Public officials are required to use and preserve the State’s resources in the most eco-
nomical and rational manner possible, and shall not abuse or waste the State’s funds.
Reaching the established targets in a good and efficient manner requires striking a
balance between efficiency and the use of resources, thoroughness, quality and good
administrative practice. (Norway)
It is interesting to see how closely economic values are linked to the avoidance
of corruption. This is a general feature: The context of economy values is corruption
rather than microeconomic rationality. The Romanian code, among many others,
is very clear on this point:
Civil servants shall use office time and the goods belonging to the respective public
authority or institution just for carrying out activities specific to the public position
held.
This takes us directly to two other nodal values in this constellation: robustness
and reliability. Both are important instrumental values that relate to a number of
other values, such as effectiveness, legality, integrity, and impartiality. An example
of robustness and efficiency as covalues appears in the Danish code for chief
executives:
It is your responsibility to ensure that the choices made and initiatives pursued in con-
nection with organizational development and change are robust and make a genuine
and constructive contribution to the organization’s efficiency and the execution of its
tasks.
Although reliability is rarely mentioned directly, this value is often presented in-
directly when linked to confidence, integrity, or trust, as shown in these examples:
You must . . . act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers”
(Great Britain)
The public official has a duty always to conduct himself or herself in a way that the
public’s confidence and trust in the integrity, impartiality and effectiveness of the
public service are preserved and enhanced (European Council)
The latter principle, from the European Council, is at the same time an example
of how values can be assumed to covary: Reliability ensures trust and confidence.
High trust and confidence make it easier to act with integrity, impartiality, and
effectiveness.
The importance of robustness and reliability tends to rule out innovation, enthusi-
asm, and willingness to take risks. These values can only be identified in four codes.
The Canadian code mentions innovation in rather soft tones: “Public servants should
constantly renew their commitment to serve Canadians by continually improving
the quality of service, by adapting to changing needs through innovation.” South

Africa states this more boldly in terms of creativity and innovation: “An employee
. . . is creative in thought and in the execution of his or her duties and seeks in-
novative ways to solve problems and enhances effectiveness and efficiency within
the context of the law.” In general, however, the balance between predictability
(robustness, reliability) and unpredictability (innovation, risk-taking) clearly tips
in favor of predictability.
Constellation 6: Public Employees

The sixth constellation is the one most often addressed. All of its values—ac-
countability, professionalism, honesty, moral standards, ethical consciousness, and
integrity—are, with rare exceptions, mentioned in all the codes. Here the key values
are accountability and integrity. These two values received the highest score and
with only one exception are mentioned in all of the codes.
Unsurprisingly, accountability is a popular value. Accountability is an “open”
value that fits into many contexts and can carry many meanings (Martinsen and
Beck Jørgensen 2010). A civil servant is accountable if open to public scrutiny, if
not committing mistakes, if not allowing political considerations to interfere with
professional standards, if avoiding conflicts of interest, if reacting to unethical be-
havior, or if respecting principles of confidentiality. At the same time, a civil servant
must also be accountable to the minister and the public.
Like accountability, integrity is used in many different contexts, but conflicts with
other values are emphasized more directly. Integrity can be phrased as professional
integrity—that is, never allowing irrelevant considerations to influence your deci-
sions. For example, a public employee in South Africa “does not unfairly discriminate
against any member of the public on account of race, gender, ethnic or social origin,
colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, political persuasion, conscience,
belief, culture or language.”
Integrity can be labeled economic integrity, which is to say, never letting economic
interests influence your work. This is a key point in many codes. In particular, the Ko-
rean code devotes a number of rather detailed paragraphs to economic integrity:
A public official shall not receive money, valuables, real estate, gifts or entertainment
(hereinafter referred to as “money and other articles”). . . . A public official shall not
borrow money or rent real estate from a duty-related person (excluding a relative
within the third degree). . . . A public official shall not give or take money and other
articles for congratulations and condolences that exceed the standards, which the head
of a central administrative agency has set within the scope of general conventions, in
consideration of ordinary custom after hearing the opinion of employees.
Finally, integrity can be understood as political integrity, meaning that the public
employee is not influenced by any political affiliation. Here the Polish code is very
restrictive, for it states that employees:
. . . shall not manifest their political opinions and sympathies, and if he/she is a civil
servant, he/she shall not arrange and belong to a political party.
. . . shall openly keep their distance from any political influence or pressure that might
lead to partiality in action and shall not engage in activities that could serve party
purposes.

Constellation 7: Relationship Between Public Administration and Citizens

The last constellation consists of four subgroups of values: a judicially oriented
category with roots in classic Weberian bureaucracy, professionalism that re-
flects the modern welfare state with all of its experts, dialogue with an emphasis
on participation and citizen involvement, and user orientation with New Public
Management–inspired customer identification. The first, judicially oriented sub-
group is undoubtedly the most important. The citizen has rights, shall be protected
by the rule of law, and unfair preferential treatment shall be avoided. The Italian
code is short and clear on this: “. . . the employee shall ensure equal treatment of
the citizens.” It is also quite specific: “In handling cases he/she shall observe their
chronological order and shall not refuse to perform actions that it is his/her duty
to perform by citing generic motivations such as the amount of work to be done
or lack of time.”
A Set of Global Public Values?
Constitutionalism and Weberian Bureaucracy as a Global Trend

To sum up, there seems to be little doubt that a number of specific public values can
be labeled as core values: public interest, regime dignity, political loyalty, transpar-
ency, neutrality/impartiality, effectiveness, accountability, and legality.
These values have been mentioned repeatedly, and there are only seven instances
(in four codes) where one of these values has
not been included (e.g., transparency in the
There are very few references to more
Korean code, political loyalty in the Italian
code). Much the same values were found in modern ideals—and realities—about
more detailed investigations of principles and (1) citizen involvement, participation
values for public servants in Central and East- and user democracy, (2) markets,
ern European countries (Palidauskaite 2011; public-private partnerships, and
Palidauskaite and Lawton 2004). Moreover,
contracting out, and (3) networks
the values in the country documents match the
values in the UN code, the European Council and multilevel governance. New
Model Code, and the conceptions of good developments in the public sector in
governance introduced by other international most countries seem to be ignored, and
organizations, such as the OECD, IMF, and modern reform values like innovation,
World Bank. It seems fair to conclude that we risk taking, and enthusiasm are
have identified a set of global values.
marginalized.
All in all, these values strongly point to the
ideals of the constitutional state and Webe-
rian bureaucracy with its conception of rational-legal authority, that is, a classical
Western conception of how the state and the public sector should be organized. In
the same breath it is worth highlighting what is left out of the codes. There are very
few references to more modern ideals—and realities—about (1) citizen involvement,
participation, and user democracy, (2) markets, public-private partnerships, and
contracting out, and (3) networks and multilevel governance. New developments in
the public sector in most countries seem to be ignored, and modern reform values
like innovation, risk-taking and enthusiasm are marginalized. Recalling the Shake-

spearean quotation, values in codes of good governance call for public service to
be motivated by duty rather than meed and promotion.
What can explain the apparent emergence of a set of global public values? Why
these classical values in particular? Well-established answers to these questions are
not available, but a few hypotheses worth further investigation can be offered.6
First, international cooperation on state building, administrative reform, and
the fight against corruption has increased significantly in the last decades through
a number of international organizations such as the OECD, the UN, Transparency
International, UNICORN, and the World Economic Forum. Through these interna-
tional networks, certain norms of good governance have spread around the world
and thus contributed to the development of a set of global public values. “Official”
international organizations do not stand alone on this market. International consul-
tancy firms acting as traveling idea-brokers contribute to the policy diffusion and
ease imitation processes leading to value-isomorphism.
Second, some states are heavily dependent on the goodwill of international or
supranational organizations. It is remarkable, given the past history of the three
Eastern European countries, that their codes are so similar to the Scandinavian and
Anglo-Saxon codes. One possible explanation is that the codes were drafted during
their transformation from former communist states to EU member states; that is, by
imitating member-state codes and the EU accession criteria, codes can be used to
handle strategic contingencies.
Third, bringing bureaucracy back in has been somewhat trendy for some years
(e.g., du Gay 2000; Goodsell 1994; Olsen 2006). It is certainly not surprising if this
trend is acknowledged when codes of good governance are drafted. They are, perhaps,
reactions to what some would label as modern fashions, such as citizen involvement,
NPM, and networks. Indeed, these codes may be an element in bureaucratic politics
situated between admirers of decency and classic virtues, on the one side, and fans
of performance-related pay and outsourcing on the other—a reply in an ongoing
battle between legality and efficiency.
A fourth type of answer can be found by focusing on the kinds of problems to
which these codes are supposedly the solution. Corruption is a widely acknowledged
issue. The Italian and Korean codes, for example, address corruption directly, and
it clearly forms the context of the two international models—the UN and European
Council codes. The latter states: “Convinced that corruption represents a serious
threat to the rule of law, democracy, human rights, equity and social justice, that it
hinders economic development and endangers the stability of democratic institutions
and the moral foundations of society.” The UN code very specifically identifies cor-
ruption as the main problem, connecting it with political instability, insecurity, the
undermining of democracy and morality, organized crime, and money laundering. If
corruption is a worldwide problem, it is perhaps no surprise that codes from around
the world present the same type of remedy.
Bringing National Variation Back In

Although the codes clearly converge with regard to values and the preferred organi-
zational model, there are some interesting differences. If the codes are recategorized
in groups of countries with the same administrative traditions, some systematic
variations appear.

Table 4 outlines a number of small but nevertheless interesting differences. First,

the Scandinavian group is characterized by a stronger focus on dialogue, user-
orientation, and self-development of employees. The Danish Code of Good Conduct
in the Public Sector exemplifies the laid-back
Scandinavian spirit: “The daily work in public
organizations is normally marked by an open The Danish Code of Good Conduct
dialogue and informal working relations, in the Public Sector exemplifies the
and the tasks are typically solved by manag- laid-back Scandinavian spirit: “The
ers and employees together after common
daily work in public organizations is
discussion of various points of view.” Such
sentiments cannot be found in the Southern normally marked by an open dialogue
European codes, possibly reflecting differ- and informal working relations,
ences in administrative and political culture and the tasks are typically solved by
and level of corruption. Denmark (like the managers and employees together after
other Scandinavian countries) is a high-trust
common discussion of various points
country and comparatively corruption-free, so
it can afford a more relaxed administrative ap- of view.” Such sentiments cannot
proach. Second, political history plays a role. be found in the Southern European
The Romanian and Polish codes (especially codes, possibly reflecting differences in
the latter) are very restrictive with regard to administrative and political culture
civil servants’ political activities; the Esto- and level of corruption.
nian code reflects chaotic and inconsistent
reform efforts (Saarniit 2005–2006); and we
are reminded of South Africa’s history of apartheid when its code specifies that an
employee “promotes the unity and well-being of the South African nation.” Third,
differences between the political systems possibly have an impact. The Anglo-Saxon
countries place notable emphasis on political loyalty, neutrality, and impartiality,
in contrast especially to the Southern European countries. The explanation may
well be found in the British electoral system (first past the post) and the close con-
nection between the legislative (parliament) and the executive (the cabinet) in the
Westminster system.7
Conclusion
Examination of fourteen national codes of good governance identified a set of ap-
parently global public values—public interest, regime dignity, political loyalty,
transparency, neutrality, impartiality, effectiveness, accountability, and legality—
reflecting ideals from constitutionalism and rational bureaucracy. They match with
the international model codes from the UN and the European Council and the concep-
tions of good governance launched by the OECD, IMF, World Bank, UN, and EU.
Consequently, a set of global public values may have been identified. Four possible
explanations of this value globalization have been suggested: increased international
cooperation on matters of state building and administrative reform, the need of some
states to adapt strategically to external contingencies, the renewed popularity of We-
berian bureaucracy, and a wider acknowledgment of the dangers of corruption.
However, variations in content—not to speak of language and style—can be
found. National political cultures deriving from differences in political systems and
political history may account for the differences between the codes of good gov-

88 •
Table 4
Values in Codes Recategorized According to Administrative Tradition
Administrative Southern
tradition Scandinavian Anglo-Saxon Europe Eastern Europe Other Model code

NO DK2 DK CA NZ GB ES IT RO PO EST TY SA KR ER UN
Public interest                
1 Altruism         
Sustainability
Regime dignity                
Majority rule            
2 User democracy 
Protection of    
minorities
3 Political loyalty              
Openness               
4 Neutrality                
Competitiveness  
Robustness           
5 Innovation     
Effectiveness               
Employee        
self-development
6 Accountability                
Rule of law                
7 Equity           
Dialogue           
User orientation            

•
89
ernance. While the national codes all focus on the same core values, they balance
and communicate them differently and, to some extent, seem to translate them into
their respective national cultures.
These findings—as a step toward an explication of a global normative context—
may be useful for the increasing number of public servants working in international
administrative spaces. They may also facilitate the global advancement of democratic
values and virtues (Gawthrop 2005). However, two warnings are appropriate. First,
these codes state public values at a rhetorical level. While in some instances the
codes may reflect actual behavior, in other instances they probably are wishful—or
strategic—thinking. Convergence may be just a useful myth, as Pollitt (2001) argued
regarding New Public Management. Second, the present study may be subject to a
Western bias in the public values approach chosen and the selection of countries.
Therefore, future research on globalized good governance should (1) include in-
depth studies of espoused values and behavior, (2) add more countries to avoid a
Western bias, and (3) engage scholars from non-Western countries.
Notes
1. For further details, see http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7237; www.
gdrc.org/u-gov/doc-oecd_ggov.html; www.imf.org/external/np/gov/guide/eng/index.
htm; http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp; www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/
ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp#top; http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/
accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm.
2. The terms “code of conduct” and “ethics code” tend to be used interchangeably
(see OECD 2008).
3. For a general description of codes, see also Kernaghan (1980), Lawton (2004),
and OECD (1996).
4. The selection was restricted to codes written in or translated into English. This
might have introduced a cultural bias.
5. The Eastern European states represent a notable exception, as they had to enact
new legislation after the collapse of the Soviet regime, including new constitutions.
For an analysis of the public values in the codes, legislation, and constitutions of these
countries, see Palidauskaite (2011).
6. Admittedly, the saliency of certain values may to some extent be a result of the
specific selection of codes. The selection of general codes for the public sector as such or
of codes for employees in more classic parts of public administration favors the presence
of “the shadow of hierarchy” compared to users, networks, and private partners.
7. For an analysis of public values in the Westminster states, see Kernaghan (2003).
References
Ball, Carolyn. 2009. “What Is Transparency?” Public Integrity 11, no. 4:293–308.
Beck Jørgensen, Torben. 1999. “The Public Sector in an In-Between Time: Searching
for New Public Values.” Public Administration 77, no. 3:565–584.
Beck Jørgensen, Torben, and Lotte Bøgh Andersen. 2011. “An Aftermath of New Pub-
lic Management: Regained Relevance of Public Values and Public Service Motiva-
tion.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management, edited by
Tom Christensen and Per Lægreid, pp. 337–350. Farnham: Ashgate.
Beck Jørgensen, Torben, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. “Public Values: An Inventory.”
Administration and Society 39, May:354–381.
Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Econom-
ic Individualism. Washington, D.C. Georgetown University Press.

Cooper, Terry L., and Diane E. Yoder. 2002. “Public Management Ethics Standards in
a Transnational World.” Public Integrity 4, no. 3:333–351.
Du Gay, Paul. 2000. In Praise of Bureaucracy. London: Sage.
Gawthrop, Louis C. 2005. “Public Administration in a Global Mode: With Sympathy
and Compassion.” Public Integrity 7, no. 3:241–259.
Gilman, Stuart C. 2005. Ethics Codes and Codes of Conduct as Tools for Promoting
an Ethical and Professional Public Service. Comparative Successes and Lessons.
Washington, D.C.: PREM, the World Bank.
Gilman, Stuart C., and Carol W. Lewis. 1999. “Public Service Ethics: A Global Dia-
logue.” Public Administration Review 56, no. 6:517–524.
Goodsell, Charles T. 1994. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Po-
lemic. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.
Kernaghan, Kenneth. 1980. “Codes of Ethics and Public Administration: Progress,
Problems and Prospects.” Public Administration 58, no. 2: 331–351.
Kernaghan, Kenneth. 2003. “Integrating Values into Public Service.” Public Adminis-
tration Review 63, no. 6:711–719.
Kickert, W. J. M. 2005. “Distinctiveness in the Study of Public Management in
Europe. A Historical-Institutional Analysis of France, Germany and Italy.” Public
Management Review 7, no. 4:537–563.
Lawton, Alan. 2004. “Developing and Implementing Codes of Ethics.” Viesoji Politika
ir Administrarimas, no. 7: 94–101.
Martinsen, Dorte Sindbjerg, and Torben Beck Jørgensen. 2010. “Accountability as a
Differentiated Value in Supranational Governance.” American Review of Public
Administration 40, no. 6:742–760.
Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. 1995. Standards in Public Life: First
Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. London: HMSO.
Olsen, Johan P. 2006. “Maybe It Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy.” Journal of Pub-
lic Administration Research and Theory 16, no. 1:1–24.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1996. Ethics in
the Public Service: Current Issues and Practice. Paris.
———. 2006. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series Applying Strategic Environmen-
tal Assessment: Good Practice Guidance for Development Co-operation. Paris.
———. 2008. Observatory on Ethics Codes and Codes of Conduct in OECD Coun-
tries. Paris: Author. Available at www.oecd.org/mena/governance/observatoryonet-
hicscodesandcodesofconductinoecdcountries.htm, accessed October 31, 2008.
Palidauskaite, Jolanta. 2011. “Value Profile of Civil Servants in New European De-
mocracies Through the Lens of Embedded Ethics.” In Value and Virtual in Public
Administration: A Comparative Perspective, edited by Michiel S. De Vries and Pan
Suk Kim, pp. 186–207. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Palidauskaite, Jolanta, and Alan Lawton. 2004. “Codes of Conduct for Public Servants
in Central and East European Countries.” Paper presented at the Eighth Interna-
tional Research Society for Public Management Conference, Budapest.
Pollitt, Christopher. 2001. “Convergence: The Useful Myth?” Public Administration
79, no. 4:933–947.
Rutgers, Mark R. 2009. “The Oath of Office as Public Value Guardian.” American
Review of Public Administration 40, no. 4:428–444.
Saarniit, Leno. 2005–2006. “A Public Service Code of Ethics Applied in a Transitional
Setting; The Case of Estonia.” Public Integrity 8, no. 1:49–63.
About the Authors

Torben Beck Jørgensen is professor emeritus in the Department of Political Science,
University of Copenhagen, adjunct professor in the Copenhagen Business School, and
guest professor at the Danish Institute of Governmental Research. He received his master’s

degree in organizational science and his Ph.D. in political science at the Copenhagen
Business School. His articles on public administration and public values have appeared
in Public Administration Review, Public Administration, American Review of Public
Administration, and Administration and Society.
Ditte-Lene Sørensen is secretary to the board of directors of the local government of

Solrød and a member of the Study Group on Ethics and Values in Evaluation of the
Danish Evaluation Society. She received her master’s degree in political science at the
University of Copenhagen and was a research assistant in political science at the Uni-
versity of Copenhagen.

Appendix 1
Selected Good Governance Codes
Country Year Code title Source (in English)
1 Poland PO 2002 Civil Service Code of Ethics www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35521348.pdf

2 Estonia EST 1999 Public Service Code of www.avalikteenistus.ee/?id=10921
Ethics
3 Romania RU 2004 Code of Conduct for the http://fs.functionarpublic.ro/86e3967522b7082bb501ba4cbeb06aa2.pdf
Civil Servants
4 Great Britain GB 2006 Civil Service Code www.civilservant.org.uk/cscode2006.pdf
5 Canada CA 2003 Values and Ethics Code for www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tb_851/vec-cve-eng.asp
the Public Service
6 New Zealand NZ 2001 New Zealand Public Service www.ssc.govt.nz/PS-code-superseded
Code of Conduct
7 Italy IT 2001 Code of Conduct for Gov- www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35526972.pdf
ernment Employees
8 Spain ES 2005 Code of Good Governance www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35521364.pdf
of the Members of Govern-
ment and the Senior Officers
of the General State Admin-

istration.
•
9 Denmark DK2 2007 Code of Good Conduct in http://perst.dk/~/media/Publications/2008/Code%20of%20Conduct%20in%20
93
the Public Sector the%20Public%20Sector%20-%20in%20brief/Code%20of%20conduct-pdf.ashx
94
Appendix 1 (Continued)
•
Country Year Code title Source (in English)
10 Denmark DK 2005 Public Governance— Code www.publicgovernance.dk/resources/File/FFOT_bog_UK.pdf

for Chief Executive Excel-
lence
11 Norway NO 2005 Ethical Guidelines for the www.regjeringen.no/upload/kilde/fad/bro/2005/0001/ddd/pdfv/281750-etiske_
Public Service retningslinjer_engelsk_revidert.pdf
12 Korea KR 2003 Code of Conduct for www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35521329.pdf
Maintaining the Integrity of
Public Officials
13 Turkey TY 2005 Regulation on the Prin- www.antalya.gov.tr/yukleme/dosya/80cd296afe348cf9f60ddf6057df1e11.pdf

ciples of Ethical Behavior
of the Public Officials and
Application Procedures and

Essentials
14 South Africa SA 1999 Code of Conduct for Public www.psc.gov.za/documents/code.asp
Servants
15 European ER 2000 Model Code of Conduct for www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/documents/Rec(2000)10_EN.pdf
Council Public Officials
16 UN UN 1996 International Code of Con- www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r059.htm
duct for Public Officials
Appendix 2
Methodology
Reliability, a major issue in a quantitative content analysis, is challenged by lack of context
and the researcher’s preconceptions. In this study, the following steps were taken to secure
the reliability of the coding and analysis process. First, the model was tested on a test-code of
conduct in order to see if it could grasp the whole value universe expressed in the code. Second,
a double-coding was performed by one author with a time span in between. Next, the codings
were compared, with a particular focus on the value profiles. There was no significant difference
between the two codings. Third, the coauthor controlled all the coding. This procedure revealed
a few disagreements and a somewhat larger set of legitimate variations in the interpretation.
The following rules of thumb served as indications of value presence:
• Value X is mentioned directly.

• Synonyms to X are mentioned.
• Aspects of X are mentioned.
• Activities leading to X are mentioned.
• Prerequisites to obtain X are mentioned.
• A definition of X is mentioned.
• The purpose of the code is X.
In a number of cases, a specified interpretation was necessary; for example, balancing of

interests (balancing of various considerations), neutrality/impartiality (often used interchange-
ably in codes), robustness, accountability, reliability (often used interchangeably in codes;
accountability in particular carries many meanings [e.g., discipline, dedication, reporting about
the errors of others, correcting own misbehavior, reporting about the danger of conflicts of
interest, reporting about own financial circumstances, and acting in accordance with profes-
sional standards]), professionalism (two interpretations have been used: (a) acting on the basis
of expert/scientific knowledge, (b) acting without regard to irrelevant circumstances [e.g.,
own feelings]; coding is based on words such as skills, professionalism, evidence, merit, facts,
objectivity, and avoidance of own viewpoints), moral standards, ethical consciousness (tend to
be used interchangeably in codes), integrity (can be difficult to separate from moral standards;
moral standards can be expressed as instrumental to integrity [covalue]), legality, rule of law,
justice, and fairness (tend to be used interchangeably).
The coding process indicated that (1) values are sometimes used without much consider-
ation, and at other times in a very detailed and careful manner; (2) some values are so close
that it is difficult to see whether they are neighboring values or synonyms; (3) some values
are all-encompassing (e.g., accountability, integrity), with the implications that (a) the precise
meaning is not clear to the writer of the code or to the interpreter, (b) the meaning can differ
from one code to another or from one situation to another, and (c) the value can be used as a
facade or window-dressing value.
While the quantitative content analysis provides an overview of the values identified, it is
thus but a crude indicator of value profiles. In order to establish more detailed information
on the values and their importance in the codes, three steps were taken as part of a qualitative
strategy:
• An analytical reading of the codes in their entirety. When splitting the codes up into
small pieces, as in the coding process, meaning can be lost. The extra reading attempts
to grasp indirectly communicated value statements.
• Identifying/analyzing whether the coded values were primary or instrumental to
other values. This is done by studying the coded results and—one by one, code for
code—establishing their internal relations (e.g., acting accountably in order to serve
the public interest).
• Identifying/analyzing whether the value has many neighbor values and covalues.
Same process as above, but focusing on neighbor value/covalue relations.

Codes of Good Governance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Codes of Good Governance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Integrity

ISSN: 1099-9922 (Print) 1558-0989 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mpin20

Codes of Good Governance

Torben Beck Jørgensen & Ditte-Lene Sørensen

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922150104

Published online: 08 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 535

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

O good old man, how well in thee appears

What is good governance?

The term “good governance” is today used by international organizations such as

72 • public integrity winter 2012–13

be interesting as statements of preferred behavior. Thus, the code is in focus as a

Codes of Good Governance

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 73

Public Values Approach

74 • public integrity winter 2012–13

Public Values Convergence

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 75

Value constellation Public values

1. Public sector’s contribution Public interest, common good, social cohesion

76 • public integrity winter 2012–13

Constellation 1: Contribution of the Public Sector to Society

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 77

Constellation CA DK2 DK ER ES EST GB IT KR NO NZ PO RO SA TY UN

1. Contribution of public sector to

3. Relationship between public

public integrity winter 2012–13

public integrity winter 2012–13

public integrity winter 2012–13

dignity is linked to values such as reliability, trust, integrity, impartiality, democracy,

Constellation 2: Transformation of Interests to Decisions

Constellation 3: Relationship Between Administrators and Politicians

Constellation 4: Relationship Between Administrators and Their Immediate

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 81

Openness in this sense is obviously also linked to legality. Openness understood

Constellation 5: Intraorganizational Aspects of Public Administration

82 • public integrity winter 2012–13

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 83

Constellation 6: Public Employees

84 • public integrity winter 2012–13

Constellation 7: Relationship Between Public Administration and Citizens

A Set of Global Public Values?

Constitutionalism and Weberian Bureaucracy as a Global Trend

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 85

Bringing National Variation Back In

86 • public integrity winter 2012–13

Table 4 outlines a number of small but nevertheless interesting differences. First,

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 87

public integrity winter 2012–13

public integrity winter 2012–13

90 • public integrity winter 2012–13

About the Authors

public integrity winter 2012–13 • 91

Ditte-Lene Sørensen is secretary to the board of directors of the local government of

92 • public integrity winter 2012–13

Country Year Code title Source (in English)

1 Poland PO 2002 Civil Service Code of Ethics www.oecd.org/mena/governance/35521348.pdf

public integrity winter 2012–13

10 Denmark DK 2005 Public Governance— Code www.publicgovernance.dk/resources/File/FFOT_bog_UK.pdf

13 Turkey TY 2005 Regulation on the Prin- www.antalya.gov.tr/yukleme/dosya/80cd296afe348cf9f60ddf6057df1e11.pdf