Corruption,Trust and their Public Sector Consequences: Introduction to the Special Edition

Abstract

Corruption and trust are two important determinants of the quality of public sectors. Empirical studies in different literatures suggest that corruption and trust have effects on factors such as economic growth, the quality of democratic institutions, life quality, the size and effectiveness of the public sector and much more. The purpose of this special issue – one that goes to the heart of the comparative policy ethos which is central to the journal's mission – is to draw on a number of country examples to shed light on the state of the literature on the connection between corruption and trust. The aim is to show that these two concepts are highly relevant to each other, and that their interconnections are important to understand the public sector consequences of corruption and trust. By focusing on these concepts, we hope that this special issue can pave the road for further comparative research.     

New Perspectives on Public Service Motivation: Symposium Introduction

ABSTRACT

A possible “dark side” of goal setting, namely perfectionism and its relationship with employee performance, was investigated. A study of police officers (n = 235) revealed that perfectionists' predisposition to (1) set goals that they perceive to be extremely high, and (2) base evaluations of self-worth on the attainment of those goals were positively related to maximum performance, namely promotional exam scores. The mediating variable was perceived effort. In the second study involving police officers (n = 242), however, perfectionism displayed a complex relationship with typical performance. The two dimensions of perfectionism, perceived high goals and contingent self-worth, were negative predictors of this criterion through their relationship with emotional exhaustion. Nevertheless, the goal difficulty dimension was a positive predictor of typical performance.     

Introduction to Jesse Burkhead Symposium

Government budgeting is one of the major processes by which the use of public resources is planned and controlled. To the extent that this is done well, governmental programs are brought increasingly to the service of its citizens, enhancing their material and cultural status.
The study of government budgeting is a study in applied economics—in the allocation of scarce resources. This study must look at operations and begin with organization and procedure, the routines which have been established for decision–making in government. It should extend to an examination of the influences, governmental and nongovernmental, that come to bear on the decision-making process.
Ours is both an organized society and a society of organizations. The significance of organization is nowhere more evident than in the public sector. Here organizational arrangements bring together the learning of all social scientists. The patterns for decision-making do not provide separate compartments for economic knowledge, for political knowledge, for social knowledge. These are merged in the organizational arrangements which have been established for the conduct of governmental affairs.1     

Encouraging Public Sector Employees to Report Workplace Corruption

This paper aims to do two things: (1) report the findings of a survey of 800 public sector employees regarding attitudes to reporting workplace corruption; and (2) offer suggestions for practical strategies which managers can employ to encourage employees to report wrongdoing. Survey responses indicated that the existence of whistleblower protection legislation might encourage people to make a report which they may not normally consider making. The majority of respondents indicated that they believe that it is their responsibility to report corruption. The majority, however, are also unsure about their organisation's ability and/or willingness to protect them if they do make a report. Not surprisingly, then, most also expect that people who report corruption will suffer for it.     

Introduction to the Symposium: Socialism and Ecology

Okay if you are worried about the greenhouse effect, if you want us to be responsible corporate citizens of the world, you must also understand we are a Third World nation and need the money. Give us 200 million PGK a year for our budget and you can be in charge of our forests.     

Introduction to the Symposium on Public Sector Management in Asia: What's New from the North?

What lessons can we draw from a symposium on public administration in Asia? Does Australia share common problems with our Asian neighbours? Are Asian countries adopting similar patterns of public sector reform, or diverging in their responses to contemporary problems? In this commentary David Corbett reviews the contributions to this symposium and finds Asian nations grappling with local issues and problems. And yet he considers there are many continuities which run across cultural and historical differences. Asia provides a patchwork of different public sector cultures and experiences on which, he suggests, there is much to reflect.     

Assessing Integrity Systems: Introduction to the Symposium

The following Symposium on Australia's national integrity systems, drawn from an Australian Research Council‐funded project conducted in 2002‐2004 by researchers from Griffith University, Charles Sturt University, University of Sydney, RMIT University, Monash University and the Australian National University, together with Transparency International Australia. The first three papers examine the public integrity regimes at federal, state (NSW) and local levels. The remaining four papers develop three themes as a framework for assessing strengths and weaknesses in Australia's major integrity regimes: consequences, capacity and coherence. The papers were originally presented in sessions of the Australasian Political Studies Association (University of Adelaide, September 2004) and the 5th National Investigation Symposium (NSW Ombudsman, Independent Commission Against Corruption and Institute of Public Administration Australia NSW, Sydney, November 2004).     

Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation

Public policy instrumentation and its choice of tools and modes of operation are treated either as a kind of evidence (governing means making regulations, taxing, entering into contracts, communicating, etc.) or as if the questions it raises (the properties of instruments, justifications for choosing them, their applicability, etc.) are part of a rationality of methods without any autonomous meaning. This paper aims to explain the significance of a political sociology approach to public policy instruments in accounting for processes of public policy change: (1) public policy instrumentation is a major issue in public policy, since it reveals a (fairly explicit) theorization of the relationship between the governing and the governed: every instrument constitutes a condensed form of knowledge about social control and ways of exercising it; and (2) instruments at work are not neutral devices: they produce specific effects, independently of the objective pursued (the aims ascribed to them), which structure public policy according to their own logic.