Reflections on Defining the Public Interest

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399709349910
• Date: 01 January 2010
• Published date: 01 January 2010

Administration & Society

41(8) 954 –978

© 2010 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0095399709349910

http://aas.sagepub.com

Reflections on Defining

the Public Interest

Stephen M. King,1 Bradley S. Chilton,2

and Gary E. Roberts3

Abstract

The definition and nature of the public interest is an ongoing area of debate

and controversy among public administration scholars and practitioners. This

article’s main thesis is that there exists an identifiable public interest entailing

both normative and pragmatic elements that should be a foundational

concern of every practicing public administrator. The administrator’s duty

entails three factors: (a) the fiduciary duties to the commons as defined

and constrained by constitutional principles, (b) policies that are congruent

with our democratic values, and (c) the practice of nonidiosyncratic and

universalized ethical administrative leadership and decision making. The

article addresses this much maligned and dismissed topic by tracing its

historical development focusing on the various lenses, working definitions,

characteristics, and typologies of the public interest and illustrating their

application in a case study of the Federal Communications Commission.

The authors conclude with summar y reflections and implications for public

administration and public policy.

Keywords

the commons, public interest standard, ethics, public interest, FCC

1Southeastern University, Lakeland, Florida

2Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina

3Regent University, Virginia Beach

Corresponding Author:

Gary E. Roberts, Robertson School of Government, Regent University, 1000 Regent University

Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23464

Email: garyrob@regent.edu

AAS349910AAS10.1177/0095399709349910Administration & SocietyKing et al.

King et al. 955

Introduction

Taylor Branch, a Pulitzer Prize–winning author and MPA graduate, once

observed that public service can be divided into two categories: “deliver the

mail” and “Holy Grail.” Although it is true that public service at times

involves performing neutral, mechanical, repetitive, logistical duties such as

deliver the mail, even these activities are part of a larger context that begs the

question and pursuit of the mandate to realize some “grand, moral civilizing

goal” (Branch, 1970, p. 8). The higher order roles and functions the public

administrator must consider when carrying out her or his duties include

upholding the letter of the law, fulfilling her or his moral compass, and pur-

suit of the common good, or what we deem the public interest, among others.

And when these various considerations come into conflict with each other, it

is the responsibility of the public administrator to carefully examine each

perspective and thoughtfully and rationally make a decision among compet-

ing values. Does the public administrator uphold the law and Constitution?

Does she or he maintain professional ties and act according to organizational

and professional culture? Can the public administrator make a decision that

does not compromise her or his moral beliefs? Should the decision simply be

rational and utilitarian—maximize the greatest good for the greatest number?

Or simply “follow the professional and bureaucratic rules”? What values and

standards should be the foundation of informed decision making?

This is the intention for this article: to provide further investigation into a

much maligned and dismissed topic, principally examining it through histori-

cal and philosophical lenses, while focusing on working definitions, charac-

teristics, and typologies of the public interest, and making application in a

case study of the public interest standard of the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC). We conclude with summary reflections and implications

for public administration and public policy. We contend the most basic

responsibility and moral duty of the public administrator is to uphold and

pursue the fulfillment of the public interest (N. S. Long, 1988).1 But what is

the public interest? Is there a unified or a pluralistic definition, or does it exist

at all? If the public administrator asks the question “Is there an identifiable

public interest?” then we are essentially questioning the democratic–republi-

can framework embracing a shared consensus on key values and the end

states most beneficial to civil society. The pluralistic definition of the public

interest entails the formulation of the “golden mean” balance between the

interests of competing stakeholders, each representing a specific public with

divergent agendas, plans, and purposes. The public administrator must be

adept at identifying the divergent and common values and characteristics of