On Cooper's “Big Questions”

• Published date: 01 July 2004
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00387.x
• Author: John A. Rohr
• Date: 01 July 2004

408 Public Administration Review •July/August 2004, Vol. 64, No. 4

On Cooper’s “Big Questions”

This is a commentary on Terry Cooper’s effort to identify the “big questions” in administrative ethics to effect a

more “focused, collaborative effort” in the ethics field. Although the author supports the thrust of Cooper’s

argument, he points out certain limitations therein.

John A. Rohr

Virginia Tech

I had the good fortune to hear Terry Cooper present his

paper on ”Big Questions in Administrative Ethics” at the

ethics workshop preceding ASPA’s 2004 annual meeting

in Portland. His remarks, though well received, did not

escape close and penetrating questions, which he handled

with the clarity and forthrightness we have come to expect

from him. His call for “focused, collaborative effort,” as

announced in the paper’s subtitle, fell on sympathetic ears.

Anyone who has written in the field of administrative eth-

ics has surely been appalled by the chaotic nature of the

literature. We seem to have trouble building on one

another’s work. Cooper faced this problem directly and

boldly identified four “big questions” that writers in the

ethics field would do well to examine carefully. I will com-

ment on them one by one in the order Cooper lists them

toward the end of his article.

1. What are the normative foundations for public ad-

ministrative ethics? To address this question, Cooper suc-

cinctly summarizes five approaches to administrative eth-

ics that are most salient to the field. I have no quarrel with

the five approaches he lists, but I am puzzled by the ab-

sence of any reference to the profound influence of Denis

Thompson’s work. Granted, Thompson’s writ runs far be-

yond administrative questions, but such questions are cer-

tainly included in his wide-ranging writings across the

broad spectrum of ethics in government. I have in mind

especially his influential article “The Problem of Many

Hands,” which appeared in the American Political Science

Review in 1981 and is still cited frequently in the litera-

ture. The omission of Thompson’s work is particularly

unfortunate because of the philosophical rigor that char-

acterizes his work. I do not think I am telling stories out of

school when I say that philosophical rigor is not always

apparent in much of the administrative ethics literature.

If I understand Cooper’s position correctly, his five ap-

proaches to ethics are empirical rather than normative. That

is, he is simply reporting what he has seen in reading the

administrative ethics literature over a good number of years.

My remarks on Thompson challenge Cooper’s reading of

the data. There is another serious omission for which I can-

not fault Cooper on empirical grounds: the absence of any

discussion of the ethical issues in conflict-of-interest laws

and policies and the financial disclosure regulations adopted

pursuant to such laws and policies. The scarcity of articles

on these topics in public administration journals is most

unfortunate. It serves only to reinforce the unwholesome

split between academics and practitioners for whom eth-

ics often means nothing but conflict of interest and finan-

cial disclosure. Because Cooper’s five approaches are em-

pirically based, he is perfectly correct in omitting conflict

of interest. It is unfortunate, however, that he is so correct.

At the risk of upsetting the tidiness of Cooper’s argument,

I would enter a plea on normative grounds that we give far

more attention to these legal questions, which can have

enormous significance for administrators who run afoul of

them. For openers, I would recommend careful attention

to Andrew Stark’s brilliant analyses of conflict-of-interest

laws and policies.

2. How do American administrative ethical norms fit

into a global context? Cooper addresses this question with

considerable insight, especially his hard-headed insistence

on the importance of articulating international principles,

even when they are often disregarded in practice. Although

a global administrative ethic, at least for now, smacks of

utopianism, Cooper’s emphasis on transparency is particu-

larly well advised. This is a value that is taken seriously in

many parts of the world and one that might serve as a foun-

dation for further international cooperation in transform-

ing today’s utopias into tomorrow’s realities. My only ca-

veat touches on the use of the words global and

globalization. These words have a nice, inclusive tone that

makes us want to burst out in a chorus of Beethoven’s Ode

to Joy. The sad truth, however, is that globalization is not

global at all. Africa leads the parade of those likely to be

left out of whatever advantages will come from greater

international cooperation. Ethical discourse on globaliza-

tion is right and proper, but it is important for ethicists not

John A. Rohr is a professor of public administration at Virginia Tech’s Center

for Public Administration and Policy. He has written and lectured extensively

on questions of ethics in public administration.