Dubnick, Melvin J., “Public Service Ethics And The Cultures Of Blame .” Paper prepared for delivery at the Fifth International Conference of Ethics in the Public Service: an International Network, 5-9 August 1996, Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Abstract: This paper has both an ultimate purpose and immediate goal. The ultimate purpose is implied in a call for rethinking the focus of the study for public service ethics. Put briefly, we need to shift our attention from developing a normative theory of public administrative ethics to the goal of establishing an ethical theory of public administrative behaviour. That proposal is the focus of the next section. The immediate objective is to offer a contribution to such an ethical theory. This effort takes the form of a framework intended to highlight a particularly important factor in the context of public service ethics — blameworthiness. The intent here is to demonstrate a cultural approach to the concept of blame that can help us better understand the role of public service ethics in variable spatial and temporal contexts. The task of elaborating that framework comprises the middle section of this work. The final section includes some implications of the Blame Culture framework for our understanding of public administration ethics. In addition, we revisit the ultimate goal by showing the value of this type of analysis for an ethical theory.
Author’s Note:
This is one of two papers presented at the Queensland conference. See “Clarifying Accountability…”.
AI_Generated Summary:
This document discusses the development of an ethical theory of public administrative behavior, emphasizing the role of blameworthiness and cultural perspectives in public service ethics.
Rethinking Public Service Ethics Focus
- Shift from normative theories to ethical behavior analysis in public administration.
- Emphasizes understanding blameworthiness within cultural contexts to improve ethics.
Historical Development of Public Ethics
- American literature on ethics shows a long search for guiding standards.
- Herbert Simon’s 1947 work influenced the field despite initial criticism for its methodological approach.
Methodological Approaches to Ethics
- Behaviorism views actions as responses to external conditions.
- Action theory sees behavior as ends-oriented and normatively regulated.
- Ethical theory focuses on moral pushes and pulls shaping actions, bridging the two approaches.
Concept of Blame and Its Cultural Roots
- Blame is linked to moral harm, responsibility, and causal contribution but is substantively unlinked from ethics.
- Different cultural contexts shape how blame is perceived and applied, affecting accountability.
Three Approaches to Blame
- Philosophical: Based on moral harm, control, and causality; rooted in Aristotle’s ideas.
- Social: Seen as a psycho-social construct serving social purposes; emphasizes harm, responsibility, and social practices.
- Cultural: Focuses on blameworthiness within specific cultural conditions; influenced by studies like Ruth Benedict’s and Mary Douglas’s.
Blame Cultures and Their Characteristics
- Four types based on responsibility and causal focus: Legalistic, Giri, Stigma, Prejudicial.
- Legalistic culture links blame to legal responsibility; emphasizes accountability and liability.
- Giri culture reflects Japanese notions of obligation; emphasizes social duty.
- Stigma culture involves social discrediting; blame is linked to social rejection.
- Prejudicial culture relies on stereotypes and biases to assign blame.
Blame and Punishment Types
- Guilt punishes transgressions; shame punishes failure to meet expectations.
- Externalized punishment involves public shame or guilt; internalized involves internal remorse.
- Different blame cultures align with specific punishment types, influencing accountability practices.
Legalistic Blame Culture in Public Sector
- Closest to ideal blame model; responsibility and causality are key.
- In public administration, legal responsibility often overlaps with blameworthiness.
- Can backfire if misapplied, as seen in cases like Alfred Dreyfus, leading to social and ethical issues.
Types of Blame Cultures in Public Administration
- The framework identifies four distinct blame cultures: Type I (Immunity-based), Type II (Responsibility-based), Type III (Stigma-based), and Type IV (Prejudice-based).
- Each culture varies in how blameworthiness is assigned, with implications for accountability and ethical behavior.
Legal and Institutional Responses to Blame
- Approaches include broad immunity for public servants, administrative law, civil service protections, and limited personal liability.
- These strategies aim to balance accountability with protection but can lead to resentment and legal complexities.
Impact of Type I Blame Culture
- Strong immunity shields public officials from blame, reducing accountability but risking long-term resentment.
- US legal developments, like the Civil Rights Act, have increased litigation against public servants, complicating blame assessment.
Responsibility and Blame in Military Incidents
- Blame often hinges on hierarchical responsibility, with cases like Pearl Harbor illustrating blame based on assumed responsibility.
- Military disasters show blame shifting based on organizational failure, hierarchy, and timing, often externalizing guilt.
The ‘On-Your-Watch’ and Causal Models
- Blame can be assigned based on being in a position during an incident regardless of fault.
- Blame may also focus on ancillary causes, with individuals blamed for contributing to harm even without direct responsibility.
Cultural Aspects of Responsibility
- Japanese giri culture emphasizes resignation to blame without admitting guilt, based on contractual obligation.
- Such cultural practices influence how blameworthiness is accepted and managed in different societies.
The ‘Guilt’ and ‘Heinous Crime’ Cases
- Eichmann’s defense as a mere functionary reflects Type II blame, while Yamashita’s harsher punishment aligns with Type I.
- These cases highlight how circumstances influence blame severity and legal outcomes.
The ‘Type III’ Stigma Blame Culture
- Focuses on collective responsibility for injustices, emphasizing moral guilt for passivity or complicity.
- Externalized shame and stigmatization serve as punishments, often linked to historical atrocities like the Holocaust.
The ‘Prejudicial’ Blame Culture
- Targets groups based on identity rather than actions, driven by prejudice and resistance to change.
- Can escalate from social avoidance to discrimination, violence, or extermination, as exemplified by anti-Semitism.
The Role of Prejudice and Externalized Shame
- Prejudice involves irreversibly assigning blame based on group membership, leading to stigmatization.
- External shame can be public humiliation or social exclusion, often internalized as guilt or frustration.
Implications for Public Service Ethics and Society
- The blame culture framework aids in analyzing ethical behavior and accountability in varying cultural contexts.
- It highlights the need for normative standards relevant to specific cultural and institutional settings.
Challenges and Future Directions
- The framework is a starting point, with room for refinement and empirical validation.
- Recognizing cultural variability is crucial for developing effective ethical policies and preventing destructive blame practices.