Beyond the integrity paradox – towards ‘good enough’ governance?

Abstract

This article understands integrity in public administration as a metaphor for the crafting of accountable, transparent, competent and responsive public administration underpinned by the concept of public value. It further argues that the design of effective integrity agencies requires a broad understanding of the obstacles to the achievement of integrity in public administration, the options for integrity reform and the appropriate strategic framework for implementing them. It concludes that integrity in public administration provides a methodology for achieving ‘good enough’ governance – a relative, evolving and culturally defined aspiration – otherwise known in mature democracies as representative, responsible and accountable government. It observes, however, that the achievement of integrity in public administration is as much a behavioural challenge as a problem of institutional design. Over the past two decades there has been a fascination with responding to integrity problems either through structural reform and the proliferation of integrity policy and processes to reinforce workplace integrity or by creating new institutions. These are often layered over existing institutions without due reflection on roles and responsibilities creating a crowded and inefficient policy and operational environment. Public organisations consequently spend a great deal of time, energy and resources on meeting compliance obligations rather than embedding integrity values in the hearts and minds of public servants. The removal of this integrity paradox remains the central challenge for integrity reform in Australia and has strong cadences in other Westminster style democracies.

Keywords:

• accountability
• integrity
• good governance
• public value
• transparency
• Westminster style democracies

Notes

1. For Global integrity network see: http://www.globalintegrity.org/ (accessed 15 June 2011); for TIRI's ‘making integrity work’ framework see: http://www.tiri.org// (accessed 15 June 2011); for Transparency International's integrity awards see: http://transparency.org// (accessed 15 June 2011), and, for the UNDP's ‘Integrity in Action Program’ see http://www.undp.org/ (accessed 15 June 2011).

2. Accountability may be defined as the obligation to answer for a responsibility conferred. Competence refers to the notion that civil servants should have the capacity to discharge their responsibilities effectively, efficiently and economically. Anti-corruption is best understood as the control of corruption.

3. Where A = accountability, C1 = competence and C2 = corruption.

4. The concept of ‘capability’ encompasses competency-based training, experiential learning, mentoring and coaching.

5. This model of the strategic management of values and ethics owes much to the practical work of Howard Whitton at the ANZSOG Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra. The model also draws heavily on work of Christopher Argyris and Donald Schön (1978) on the management of ‘values’ in organisational learning.