875 word Article Review/ Both articles attached

Curriculum and ^?^T tr / - i., . Michael

Case Notes coeditors

Submissions to Curriculum and Case Notes should be sent to Robert A. Leone, School of Management, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215.

INTEGRATING ETHICS INTO THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CURRICULUM: 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 butMT^n existing etlucs~tfieories 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.

Introductian

Schools of public affairs and public administration are coming under increas- ing pressure to integrate discussions of ethics into their curricula. Just how to best accomplish this has been the subject of considerable controversy. This article describes an analytic approach one of the authors has used to integrate an ethical perspective into a graduate policy analysis course. This experience

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

Curriculum and Case Notes I 4 7 1

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.

Dackgraund

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 a i d . . . in thinking about the different ethical dilemmas" (p. 3). Bergenson [1992] similarly concluded that a review of the progress in the Held 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 tbe 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

4 7 2 / Cunicutum 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 af Maral Philasaphy

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 Obligatians 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

Curriculum and Case Notes I 4 7 3

Table 1. Obligations of the public administrator.

Obligation Explanation

Do no barm Cause no pain or suffering or loss to otbers Improvement Improve tbe condition of the relevant constituency Equity/fairness Treat all groups and individuals fairly: tell the truth; keep promises

applied within existing courses, her discussions of deontological theory and the stakeholder concept are particularly relevant examples for illustrating the development of the framework described in this article.' Here the terms "parties" and "stakeholders" are used synonomously.

Unlike philosophies of teleology and cultural relativism, Lewis focuses on deontological theory, emphasizing the responsibilities and obligations of the decisionmaker, not the morality or immorality of the outcomes of those deci- sions. This approach has become an emergent theoretical perspective in public administration although by no means the only one [see Brady and WoUer, 1996]. Guy [1990], Lewis and Catron [1996], and the seminal work of Lewis [1991] have elaborated lists of or identified moral obligations of decision- makers. Combining and interpreting these lists only lends further support for 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.

' 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.

4 7 4 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Internal Superiors Employees Self

External and direct

Clients Suppliers Lawmakers Taxpayers Residents Businesses

External and indirect

Society Other

jurisdictions Future

generations

Do no harm Improvement Equity/fairness

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

For a defined decisionmaking situation the OBP matrix focuses tbe 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 ODP 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.

Curriculum and Case Notes I Alb

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.

Classraam 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.

Classroom Applicotlon: A Professionol Dilemmo

After students are exposed to the basics of moral philosophy, ethical theories, and how to structure situations using the OBP matrix, the instructor can present decision problems with ethical dimensions. One classroom approach 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 a "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

Alb I 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.

Clossroom Applicotion: Cose Anolysis

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.

Clase 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

Curriculum and Case Notes I All

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's plan to improve the results.

3. Take the mayor's advice and shut up and let Schmidt or others present the staff position.

4. Present the cost-benefit results for both proposals without modification and express concern about the mayor's plan.

OBP analysis. The first step in the analytic process (see Table 2) is to structure the OBP matrix. For this illustrative application, the obligations will be: do no harm, improvement, and equity/fairness (as previously defined). The relevant parties would be Mayor Wendall, the Oakwood Board of Trustees, Village Manager Schmidt, LeBlanc himself, the taxpayers of Oakwood, and future generations of Oakwood citizens. The second step is to create the normative matrix by specifying the administrative behaviors that are necessary to meet these obligations for each party. Table 3 is a completed normative matrix for LeBlanc's decision situation, as it might develop in a class discussion. Alternatively, students might each be asked to fill out the matrix as preparation for class. An aggregation/reconciliation of different cell contents might make 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

4 7 8 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Table 3. Illustrative normative matrix.

Do no harm Improvement Equity/fairness

Mayor Wendall

Ocikwood Board of Trustees

Village Manager Schmidt

Himself (LeBlanc)

Inform and warn of possible nega- tive consequences Refrain from pub- lic criticism

Inform and warn of possible nega- tive consequences Minimize public criticism of board

Inform and warn of possible nega- tive consequences

Maintain good re- lationships with superiors

• Provide objective and accurate infor- mation for deci- sionmaking

• Provide best pro- fessional judg- ment for a range of policy options

• Respond to re- quests for informa- tion in a timely fashion

• Provide objective and accurate infor- mation for deci- sionmaking

• Provide best pro- fessional judgment

• Provide objective and accurate infor- mation

• Provide best pro- fessional judgment

• Provide profes- sional support as needed

• Meet/exceed per- formance expecta- tions of superiors

• Meet/exceed all rel- evant professional norms

• Upgrade/expand professional capa- bilities

Show respect for person and office Be honest in all dealings Show loyalty to person and office

Show respect for all members Be honest in all dealings Show loyalty to all members

Show loyalty to his superior Show loyalty to his colleague Keep informed about situation

Be aware of other professional opportunities

Taxpayers of Oakwood

Future generations

• Inform and warn taxpayers of possi- ble negative conse- quences of pend- ing issues

• Seek support from appropriate pub- lic and nonpublic sources

• Provide for effi- cient financing of necessary services

• Protect/expand current tax base

• Provide employ- ment opportu- nities

• Preserve areas for future expansion

• Protect long-term tax base

• Provide truthful and complete information

• Build community interest in re- source conser- vation

Curriculum and Case Notes I 4 7 9

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 others present the staff position.

4. Revise the assumptions in the cost-benefit analysis of the mayor's plan to improve the results.

The classroom instructor should not expect all students to agree with this ranking. The students' judgment will be affected by their normative matrices, as well as their own idiosyncratic priorities and ethical philosophies. As discussed earlier, the real power of this method of ethical analysis is that it provides a common frame of reference for all students to view the moral situation. Ideally, at the end of the discussion, either consensus within the class can be reached 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.

4 8 0 / Curriculum and Case Notes

Table A.I. Selected ethical philosophies.

Schools of thought

Advocates

Major premises

Criticisms

Academic titles

Culture-based

William Sumner [1906], Ruth Bene- dict [1946], See Kai Nielsen [1966]

• Emphasizes local norms/taboos

• Ethics is culture-spe- cific

• There are no abso- lute truths

• Discounts the no- tion of universally applicable rules of behavior

• Used as justification for violations of the precepts of the other two schools

• Cultural relativism

Utility-based

John Stuart Mill [1861], Jeremy Ben- tham [1789]

• Emphasizes ends. goals, or purposes

• Cost-benefit analysis

• Concern for the greatest good for the greatest number of people

• Primary focus on the consequences of actions

• Disregards the inten- tions of tbe action

• Maximizes harm to the smallest constit- uent group

• Consequences and probabilities of con- sequences must be anticipated

• Teleological models or consequentialist

Rule-based

William Ross [1930], John Rawls [1971], Immanuel Kant [1959 translation]

• Emphasizes con- cerns for duty or moral obligation

• People should be- have in accordance with specific rules of behavior that either uncondition- ally guide their be- havior (Kant) or conditionally guide their behavior (Rawls)

• Generally not con- cerned with the con- sequences of the action in question

• Unyielding in all situations

• Deontological models

Appendix

Canceptually Distinctive Categaries 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.^ 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.I):

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

^ 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.

Curriculum and Case Notes / 4 8 1

culture in wbicb 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," IntemationalJoumal of Public Administration 15(7), pp. 1369-1396. Bol, Jan Willem, Charles Crespy, James Stearns, 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 Govemment: A National Survey of Public Adminis- trators," Public Administration Review 50(3), pp. 345-353.

4 8 2 / Curricutum 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).

Curricutum and Case Notes / 4 8 3

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.