Civil service management and corruption: What we know and what we don't

Numerous studies have linked a range of economic, social, and institutional variables with corruption in government. Yet, most of this literature overlooks the management of public officials themselves. This is a relevant omission: almost all corrupt exchanges involve public officials. This article reviews studies—36 in total—that do address civil service management and anti‐corruption. It finds that prior works assess a narrow set of civil service management structures. Meritocratic recruitment and, less robustly, pay levels have been associated with lower corruption. By contrast, robust evidence on how corruption relates to other established public personnel management areas—such as distinct pay structures (rather than levels), promotion, transfer, and job stability practices—is largely unavailable. The article thus calls for research assessing the effects of a broader set of civil service management practices to gain a deeper understanding of corruption, and how to curb it.     

Why we should care about respect

Respect is a concept that is often used in political and social discourse, but is rarely adequately conceptualised. In this article it is argued that there are three very good reasons for caring about respect. First, self-respect is an integral part of our image of our self. Second, 'social respect' mediates our social interactions. Judgments of our merits and status are part of the everyday interactions that we engage in. Respect matters because it represents a way in which we are taken seriously by others. And, third, respect matters because it links to social justice. In this sense, there is a radical dimension to the concept of respect that has often been overlooked by radical theorists who have been over-enthusiastic in endorsing a view of morality as based in bourgeois liberalism. The article argues for a radical politics of respect that embraces liberal ideals and pushes them to their radical conclusions.     

'Just because we are amateurs doesn't mean we aren't professional': the importance of expert activists in tenant participation

The current UK government is committed to extending participation in civil society, with the aim of significantly increasing volunteer numbers by 2005. It has put much effort into attracting 'representative participants', particularly from traditionally under-represented groups. 'Natural joiners' attract far less interest and are often written off as 'the same old faces'. But the growth in opportunities for participation has actually encouraged the natural joiners because the nature of much modern participation requires people like them. Focusing on natural joiners and their motivations rather than looking at why the non-joiners don't join, should increase understanding of why people participate and suggest new ways forward. This article looks at people active in tenant participation – a case study of a government 'Sounding Board' and some preliminary results of a survey of activists. There are some unexpected findings, including that the motivations of natural joiners are close to those of career professionals in the same field, and that interest in the 'subject' of participation may be a motivator, rather than an outcome.     

Why we are so bad,and what we can do about it: On the state and civic virtue

The ‘80s were the decade in which scholars in such diverse fields as ethical philosophy, political science, and public administration rediscovered the importance of character in public life: what another generation called civic virtue. The ‘90s, I hope, will be the decade in which this insight passes from academic journals into the legislative and administrative arenas. Why is the subject so urgent? Reason one. As even James Madison, the theorist of “pitting ambition against ambition,” knew and admitted - and as recent ethical disasters in public life have reminded us - it is simply impossible to design an administrative system that will run both justly and efficiently without any need for civic virtue on the part of the people who run it. Reason two. It is one thing to talk about civic virtue; it is another to do something about it. The practical difficulties are enormous, and need to be both deeply studied and widely discussed. After all, civic virtue is a scarce commodity. To what extent can it be cultivated? And to what extent can it be supplemented with such administrative devices as “pitting ambition against ambition” without, in the end, undermining it? This article addresses both questions, but especially the second, giving particular attention to the unanticipated consequences of state intervention in the development of civic virtue.     

Why we need bricoleurs to foster robust governance solutions in turbulent times

The public sector frequently confronts a heightened societal turbulence triggered by an increasing number of unpredictable and disruptive economic, political, and environmental crises. How can the public sector respond to this challenge? This article argues, first, that to continue to provide relevant solutions, public governance must be robust in the sense of adapting and innovating policies, programs, and services in ways that facilitate the achievement of basic public ambitions, functions, and values in the face of challenges, stressors, and threats. Second, to build robust governance, public managers must engage in bricolage and become bricoleurs in order to flexibly combine elements from competing and co-existent public governance paradigms. Doing so necessitates the construction of institutions conducive to bricolage, that is, institutions that are characterized by a high degree of flexibility that allows for experimentation; institutions that foster inclusive deliberation, knowledge sharing and joint learning; and institutions that balance centralization with distributed agency.