John A. Rohr
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
An expression used frequently in public administration literature to denote the fundamental principles of a polity which, ordinarily, should guide administrative behavior. Although the term applies in principle to any polity, de facto it appears almost exclusively in literature focused on the United States. The expression entered the public administration literature in the first edition of this author's Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values.
When the Watergate scandal turned professional attention to questions of ethics in the mid-1970s, professors of public administration puzzled over how to go about teaching ethics to their students. At least four possible approaches emerged: legal, philosophical, psychological, and socially equitable.
Each approach brought certain problems in its wake. The legal approach was too narrow and too negative. Neither students nor their professors seemed willing to rest content in compliance with conflict-of-interest statutes and financial disclosure regulations. Philosophy was found wanting because few public administration students could be reasonably expected to have the specialized background required to grasp and apply the subtle complexities of philosophical argument. Humanistic psychology held considerable appeal, but proved inadequate because of its failure to address the demands of "role morality" that inevitably arise in the field of professional ethics. That is, professional ethics necessarily deals with the standards suitable for a particular calling—for example, lawyers must not suborn perjury, physicians must get informed