La nouvelle gestion publique et l'accroissement des marges de manœuvre : un terreau propice au développement de l'éthique?

Abstract: The administrative discretion of civil servants is a central topic in public administration literature. Some authors view it as necessary and beneficial, while other researchers see it is a source of widespread abuse. However, reforms inspired by the “new public management” taking place in a number of public administrations are promoting greater managerial flexibility. In parallel with these modernization initiatives directed at administration, scandals continue to shake politico‐administrative life, and ethical issues are increasingly at the heart of public action. It is within this context that we question the relationship between an increasing managerial discretion and the development of an ethics infrastructure. Which areas are at risk? Can ethics help overcome the potential abuses of power? How do managers perceive their ability to be flexible and the role of ethics in their work? How do you implement the ethical requirements developed in various standards documents? These are the principal themes addressed in this article that presents the findings of a qualitative case study conducted in a Quebec ministry in 2008–2009. Our results show that, contrary to what promoters of the new public management claim, managers have little, if any, discretionary power in matters of financial management. Their actions and decisions are strictly governed by hierarchical control mechanisms or a computer system. This explains in part why taking ownership of general principles and establishing an ethics infrastructure remain a formal process.     

On studying world order: A plea for systematic inquiry

Conclusion The creation of improved systems of world order requires great care. Alternative configurations may or may not prove more suitable, and each must be painstakingly examined on its own merits. For those of us who are actively concerned with studying about world order, this means the application of a far more rigorous conception of inquiry to our subject. So long as we cannot accept the Leibnizian claim that this is certainly the best of all possible worlds, our search for better ones must certainly be the best of all possible searches. This means that models of world order must be derived from appropriate hypotheses and subjected to the strictures of systematic analysis. World order studies must be treated in accordance with the strict canons of inquiry outlined in this essay. Only then can they begin to develop the highly generalized system of theory that characterizes any science.     

Whistleblowing and corruption control: The GE case

This paper focuses on the use of the amended False Claims Act to counter defense contract fraud against the U.S. government. The case deals with the scheme of a former Israeli Air Force General and a GE marketing specialist to divert funds, provided by the U.S. to Israel, for unauthorized and private usage, and with the actions of the GE whistleblower, Chester L. Walsh, in bringing suit against GE under FCA. The paper analyzes poses the ethical problem of providing an economic bounty for the whistleblower even while acknowledging the effectiveness of this practice in countering fraud.     

The "Essential Domino" of Military Operations: American Public Opinion and the Use of Force

It is a commonly held belief that the foreign policy issue to which the American public is most sensitive is the use of military force. Because American public opinion regarding the use of force is highly palpable, salient, and organized, and because decisions regarding the use of force are some of the most important decisions the nation ever has to consider, the analysis of public opinion regarding military involvement is academically significant and policy relevant. The indication from policymakers is that American military operations require public support. As a result, scholars and analysts have come to realize that public opinion is the "essential domino" of military operations. The relationship between mass American public opinion and the use of military force has become, therefore, the focus of numerous studies and surveys. There are currently several competing explanations—schools of thought—in the literature on why the mass public supports the use of force. This article is an attempt to identify the most prominent schools of thought on public opinion and the use of force, and the central factors associated with each school. Such a review is important to generating policy–relevant guidance pertaining to public opinion and the use of force—an objective made more pressing by the current war against terrorism.