ethics and legitimation: a citizen perspective...university of vaasa, finland e-mail:...

NOT TO BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORS’ PERMISSION!

ETHICS AND LEGITIMATION:

A CITIZEN PERSPECTIVE

DOES GENERATION MATTER?

Ari SALMINEN, Professor PhD.

Kirsi LÄHDESMÄKI, University lecturer, PhD.

Rinna IKOLA-NORRBACKA, Researcher, PhD.

Faculty of Philosophy, Public Management,

University of Vaasa, Finland

E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Paper presented at European Group for Public Administration -Conference, Toulouse

8th–10th September 2010

2

Table of contents

1. Introduction 3 2. Decent citizenship 6 3. Justice and equality 9 4. Trust 11 5. Conclusions 13

List of figures and tables

Figure 1. Three ethical issues as elements of legitimation 3 Table 1. Political obligations and responsibilities of a decent citizen 7 Table 2. Ethical valuations of a decent citizen 8 Table 3. Statements of justice and equality 10 Table 4. Trustworthiness of institutions 13 Table 5. Ethical distinctions and the tensions of legitimation 14

3

Tensions of legimitation

1. Introduction

Ethics and legitimation

The goal of this paper is to analyze ethical issues that are related to the question of legitimation. We try to explore the tensions of legitimation both through selected ethical issues and the analysis of generations. In exploring the tensions of legitimation from the ethical perspective, the approach to legitimation remains here relatively narrow and descriptive. The general research setting is presented in Figure 1. Decent citizenship

Justice and equality Trust

Figure 1. Three ethical issues as elements of legitimation

Connected to public sector ethics debate (Rawls 1973; Hart 1974; Solomon & Mc Murphy 1990; Comte-Sponville 1995; Lawton 1998; Six & Huberts 2008), the ethical issues described in Figure 1 are interrelated and we also assume that these ethical aspects are connected to the idea of a legitimate society. If citizens feel 1) that the central virtues are important to them; 2) that the society is just and equal; and 3) that they can trust in societal institutions, then it is assumed that they consider politics and administration as basically legitimate. As shown in Figure 1, a limited number of ethical issues are taken into a closer consideration. The empirical analysis is focuses on three issues, which are the virtues of decent citizenship, justice and equality in society, and trust in institutions. In addition to the above said, the paper describes citizens’ opinions, attitudes and expectations on these ethical topics. The perceptions of citizens are further specified by asking whether the generation matters. Are the perceptions of the different generations distinctive and can they be explained by the gap between generations? Opinions or attitudes from generation to generation reflect more or less personal experiences. Generally speaking, older generations look to past events and younger ones tend to concentrate more on future events. How are the tensions of legitimation understood in this presentation? Are there any visible tensions and are these tensions permanent or temporary, fundamental or

4

trivial? What are the consequences for the society and its moral basis? Some clarifications are needed, and this reminds us of the fact that legitimation is a broad and multidimensional concept. Legitimate society is a society which citizens consider as justified. The legitimacy of society means the ability to create and maintain an understanding that the existing institutions are the most suitable ones for the society. Legitimacy is also understood in the psychological terms, because it underlines citizens’ attitudes towards the public authority. (Jansson 1993: 121–122.) Every political system has its own ideology of legitimacy which supports the principles of public power. The state is legitimate when it has an adequate rationale, and when it pursues proper ends as well as observes due limits. These are the basis for public authority (Thomas 2000: 77). In the public sector context, ethics is related to legitimation. According to Denhardt (1989: 192) in a political environment ethics enables administrators to act in an ethical and legitimate manner. Public administration must always exist in the context of public institutions, which means that public administrators must learn to behave in the context of governmental institutions. The enhancement of integrity depends on sustaining and improving the public institutions. (Lynch & Lynch 2006: 70.) What are the main reasons for choosing the ethical topics presented in Figure 1? Although the analysis of these issues is limited to a few subthemes, more focused definitions are required. Decent citizenship is described as membership in a society, the creation of rights and duties and active participation. As a status citizenship refers to civil, political and social rights guaranteed by the state. As a role decent citizenship takes into account the identities that each individual possesses. (Pierson 1996: 134.) The concept of a decent citizen includes features from morality. Through the ages ethics has pursued to answer the questions of what kind of life is considered to be good and right; and what virtues, habits and rules should one have and as well as to follow. History, national characteristics, culture and other socio-economic factors define the contents of a decent citizen. (Garofalo et al. 2010; c.f. Häyry 2002: 13.) As a sub-system of society, administration exists to serve citizens, and thus the values of administration have to be approved by citizens. Therefore it is relevant to know how citizens themselves estimate the concept of being a decent citizen. (Stivers 2001: 590.)

Justice is a fundamental principle of a democratic society and such a society is expected to provide equal opportunities for everyone. Following the ideas of Rawls (1973), equality refers to equal and fair treatment of citizens. In public administration, the promotion of equality means that there is no discrimination between different groups or individuals. According to Dworkin (2004), equality and distribution of resources as ideals are based on envy-free action. In a market-driven society everyone should have equal access to competition.

5

Political system is a system of trust. The image of ethical governance is based on examples shown by those who occupy political and administrative positions. Politicians and public authorities are expected to keep their promises. Keeping promises is one of the core values in ethical decision making. It means keeping one’s commitments as well. To be trustworthy, promises must be kept and commitments fulfilled. (Guy 1990: 15.) The basic security of the society requires the public confidence in institutions. From the citizens’ perspective trust is a sort of confidence in politicians and other public authorities. People – whether young or old – often have a negative attitude towards the government and the public authorities. But still, if citizens strongly trust in one organization, they are likely to trust in other organizations as well (Christensen & Laegreid 2005). Trust is also a matter of reputation. Method and data

The evidence of this paper is based on two separate empirical data. The first one is a national citizen survey implemented by the University of Vaasa in 2008. The second one is a youth survey carried out 2009. Both surveys belong to the research program “Citizens First? Ethical Government in Terms of Citizens” funded by the Academy of Finland. The field-based empirical research on administrative ethics is less common than research based on normative and philosophical literature. For gathering opinions, attitudes and expectations, the survey technique is an accurate tool in administrative ethics when the purpose is to reach a wider population (Frederickson & Walling 2001: 37, 40; Van de Walle 2008; Salminen 2006; Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka 2009). In the Citizen Survey the original questionnaire consisted of citizens’ assessments on ethics of public services, good administration and virtues of public authorities, and ethics of political system. The survey questionnaire was sent to 5000 Finnish citizens, aged 25–65 in spring 2008. The sample was chosen to represent Finland in miniature. The high response rate raised the validity of the survey. Although no incentives were used, the response rate rose to 40,4 %. The main research report is called ‘Are we being heard? Ethical governance and citizens’ (Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka, 2009). The Youth Survey offers the young people’s perspective on a fair society. The research material was collected in six upper secondary schools in Finland in spring 2009. Respondents were mostly 16 to 18 year olds. Altogether 1130 students filled out the questionnaire during their school day. The question groups gathered up young citizens’ assessments on decent citizenship, ethical challenges for society, virtues of public authorities and politicians, and future ethical challenges. The main research report is called ‘Good Governance - Who Cares? Youth perspectives on good governance and fair society’ (Lähdesmäki 2010). The two surveys have similar question groups which enabled us to create the research framework as a compiled data. The questions of the questionnaire forms with exact percentage shares are presented in Appendix 1 and 2.

6

The empirical data was divided into three age-groups. The first group consists of the youth survey data; young people aged 16–18 (n=1130). The second group consists of the middle-aged people; aged 30–49 (n=786), and the third group consists of the older generation aged 50–66 (n=1011). The two last ones come from the citizen survey. In the following tables 1–3 the percentage share of “Agree” has been formed by counting together the alternatives “Strongly agree” and “Agree somewhat” and the percentage share of “Disagree” has been formulated by counting together “Strongly disagree” and “Disagree somewhat”. The percentage share of “Neither agree nor disagree” has been excluded. The figures in Table 4 have been formulated by the corresponding logic.

2. Decent citizenship

The way citizens experience decent citizenship might tell something about how they experience administration or at least what the administration should be like that it would correspond to the needs and expectations of citizens. Legitimate administration needs support of the citizens. The results of the political decision making should represent values of citizens – at least in the ideal situation.

By discussing the virtues of the citizens we try to understand what one should do, what one should be like, and how one should live. Through ideals one can at least intellectually try to gauge the distance that separates the real world from those ideals. (Lynch & Lynch 2006: 72; Hart 2001: 146.) The ethics of virtue require a moral commitment to specific values. Virtue ethics has always been marked by the moral obligation to transcend one’s own self-interest. Hart (2001) concluded that all individuals are born with an innate imperative to virtue. Virtue is necessary to be fully human. The cardinal virtues must be intentionally cultivated, they must emerge in intentional, voluntary moral action, and they require unending moral improvement. Virtue is a force that has or that can have an effect on our way of acting as a part of society. The virtue of a thing or a being is what constitutes its value and excellence. To act well is our power. (Comte-Sponville 2003: 2–3.) Being a good citizen requires that one chooses the greater good when confronted with questions of self-interest versus public interest (Guy 1990: 127). According to the ideal of citizenship in the Western tradition of political philosophy, citizens should be public-minded and self-sacrificing. They should have a keen sense of obligation and of the “common good”. Citizens should be loyal, law-abiding, familiar with virtues, and they should value their political rights and obligations. They should take part in their community and participate in common matters, and also be pious, moderate and of good moral character. Moral individualism and intellectual sobriety are the critical standards of justice and civic obligation. (Villa 2001: ix, 1–2.) It is relevant to study citizens’ notions of decent citizenship for the functioning and development of the political system. And above all, it is important when defining the

7

contents of the ethics of governance. The concept of a decent citizen estimated by the citizens themselves gives tools to the authorities to develop a more ethical government in the eyes of citizens.

How do citizens experience the concept of a decent citizen? What do they consider to be important virtues? Some of the statements can be categorized as the traditional valuations of a decent citizen and some are newer, rising from the current requirements. Those valuations are often mentioned as citizens’ qualifications: working and fulfilling of societal duties, political participation, critical consuming and environmental consciousness, being tolerant and being a loyal member of the society.

When a citizen answers the question “who is a decent citizen” one perceives the ideal model of a citizen as a member of society. At the same time one might have in mind a picture of an ideal society. We believe that the question of the virtues of citizenship is connected to views on the equality of the society and on the trustworthiness of institutions. For example, if a citizen sets great store by paying taxes or following rules, then one probably considers public service organizations or legislative organizations trustworthy at least to some extent.

In the following analysis the ethical features of a decent citizen are considered two-folded. Table 1 describes commonly expected ways of behavior for a citizen as a member of society. Table 2 presents virtues with a moralistic appreciation as well as ethical expressions of opinions concerning current social ethical issues.

Table 1. Political obligations and responsibilities of a decent citizen: The views of the three generations

Youth Middle-aged Older generation

Agree %

Disagree %

Agree %

Disagree %

Agree %

Disagree %

is involved in politics 13 33 7 58 15 48

votes in elections 74 5 78 8 83 7

obeys the law 92 2 97 1 97 1

pays taxes 93 2 97 1 96 2

appreciates any honest work 84 4 93 2 95 1

does not accept grey market 57 12 86 4 91 2

The number of the respondents varied from 1122 to 1128 in the category of Youth, from 777 to 782 in the category of Middle-aged, and from 992 to 996 in the category of Older generation.

8

Table 2. Ethical valuations of a decent citizen: The views of the three generations


Agree %

Disagree %

Agree %

Disagree %

Agree %

Disagree %

assorts waste 74 7 84 5 89 4

tries to save energy 78 5 91 3 91 3

avoids the waste of natural

resources 75 5 90 2 87 3

feels responsibility for global

situation 67 8 86 4 81 5

is tolerant towards

immigrants 70 11 66 11 65 12


As far as obligations and responsibilities are concerned, the older generation sees voting in the elections more important than the youth do. The age limit for voting in Finland is 18, so the youth do not have experience of voting and of its impacts. However, the middle-aged people are more cynical towards political participation than the youngsters and the elderly. In the estimations of paying taxes and obeying the law remarkable differences were not found. However, it is commonly assumed that the youth value those less than the middle-aged and the older generation. The biggest difference between the generations can be found in the opinions on the grey market. The difference in opinion between the youth and the older generation was remarkable. The youth has a different attitude towards the grey market but they still shared the opinion on the importance of paying taxes with the older generation. A significant difference was also found in the involvement in politics. The youth have a remarkably more positive attitude towards it. Ethical valuations are described in Table 2. It is commonly assumed that the youngest generation is the most environmentally oriented one. As Table 2 shows, reality is more complicated than that. In the empirical findings the middle-aged and the older generation value environmental questions more than the youth did.

9

3. Justice and equality Justice can be seen as a boundary that defines other virtues, as a precondition of all value, and the requirement for any kind of humanity. We assume that justice has the corresponding role in a legitimate society. The equality of citizens is the principle behind any true democracy. Justice exists only to the extent that citizens begin to want it and bring it into being. There is no justice in the legal sense without laws or without culture. In the large sense, there is no justice without society. (Comte-Sponville 2003: 60–62; 71, 75) There exist various criteria for justice. Theories of justice have usually been theories of distributive justice like Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Rawls introduces two well-known principles. Firstly, “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”, and secondly, “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity”. (Rawls 1973; Thomas 2000: 103–105, 110–111.) The question of social justice concerns the primary subject of justice as the basic structure of society and the way in which the major institutions distribute rights and duties, and deliver advantages. The major institutions define men’s rights and duties and influence through what they can expect to be and how well they can hope to do. An important aspect of equality is the equality of opportunities, and often providing equal opportunities to everyone is regarded as a responsibility of the society. Equality refers to equal and fair treatment of citizens. One consequence of this principle is that public offices and positions are open to all. (Rawls 1973: 60–89; 2001: 73; 2004: 49.) Equality in public administration is connected to fair decisions and a just society. Administrative decisions are considered to be just when they produce just outcomes (distributive justice) and are produced by a fair process. Equality functions as a cornerstone of a just public administration. A society based on just public administration has the possibility of achieving justice, assuming that citizens have legitimated the system of public administration and public services. In the rawlsian view, the pursuit of equality requires the distribution of resources and inequalities should not hurt those who are least-advantaged. Finnish society has a strong tradition of taking care of the least-advantaged for example with the comprehensive social security as well as with the free education and health care system to all citizens. The differing opinions of citizens on the public interest can be seen as a debate over substantive democratic values, and moreover on the equality of conditions or equity. This view instrumentalizes the public interest to a debate between those who would promote greater equality, and those who would not limit individual liberty at its expense. (Morgan 2001: 154.) If citizens regard decisions to be just and in accordance with the public interest, they can accept even the hard decisions concerning for example service provision and

10

taxation. The fulfillment of the public interest is safeguarded by just decisions and the commitment to serve all citizens, not only a specific privileged group of citizens or customers. If the citizens experience the public administration to be an unequal system, it threatens the legitimacy of the whole society. On the contrary, if public services are perceived to be fair, it improves the legitimacy of the public administration as a whole. Table 3 represents the considerations of the three generations on the questions of justice and equality. Table 3. Statements of justice and equality: The views of the three generations


Agree %

Disagree %

Agree %

Disagree %

Agree %

Disagree %

Finnish society is becoming

more unjust 20 34 45 24 48 23

Unequal treatment of citizens is

increasing 23 25 58 16 64 14

Disparities in incomes will

increase 41 11 91 1 94 1

Inequality shall not hurt the

least-advantaged 63 6 88 3 93 2

The number of the respondents varied from 1096 to 1126 in the category of Youth, from 763 to 778 in the category of Middle-aged, and from 986 to 997in the category of Older generation.

The differences between the generations are remarkable in all questions, and especially between the youth and the two other generations. Above all, the middle-aged and the older generation express their concern for the increasing inequality and class differences. Almost half of the older generation estimate that the country will become more unjust in the future. From the youth only one fifth share the same opinion. However, the young people might feel more insecure in their opinions on ethical questions. In fact, the percentage share of the insecure respondents is quite remarkable in this category. An even more remarkable difference concerns the estimates on increasing income disparities. In spite of this, the youth are more positive towards the future. Why do people think that our society is becoming more unjust or that income disparities will increase in the future? At the same time they stress that a decent citizen pays taxes. The data does not give answers to this question. However, a positive attitude towards taxpaying tells us that people estimate public services to be equally available to all citizens. The generational gap is evident when the rawlsian principle “inequality shall not hurt the least-advantaged” is observed. The older generation estimates it to be much more important than the youth.

11

4. Trust Trust is studied through different dimensions: trust between individuals, trust towards the activity of professionals, trust inside and within organizations, trust between organizations, trust in politicians, or trust inside the community. (Lawton & Doig 2006: 16–17). Public office holders are facing more and more complex ethical challenges. The failure to make ethical decisions can erode public trust and confidence in the government. Transition to an open society calls for a rededication to the democratic values, the respect of human rights, and a belief in the service of citizens and of the common good. (Menzel 2007: 178, 190–191.) As previously indicated, among citizens trust is a sort of a general confidence in politicians and public authorities. Citizens’ beliefs and opinions on trust emerge through many processes. Some opinions are formulated in childhood through the process of socialization. (Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka 2010.) Ethical governance is based on the examples given by politicians and public authorities. Those who occupy an office, whether appointed or elected, are expected to demonstrate the highest degree of integrity and to conduct themselves in an honorable way. A democratic government – one that is open and accessible to popular will and thought – can be achieved only by morally committed individuals. (Menzel 2007: 30.) Complete moral development entails not only knowing what one should do but also having the motivation and strength to do what is right. (Garofalo & Geuras 1999.) It is good to keep in mind that all distrust is not harmful. A certain amount of distrust is functional because it forces the administration to maintain a healthy level of administrative accountability. The optimal level of trust is connected to the development of political and administrative culture. There is no single or unambiguous explanation to why some organizations seem to be trustworthy and some others not. It is a question of personal experience, of the experience of the circle of acquaintances, of images and the history and also the base of the trustor. (Hofstede 1980; Van de Walle et al 2008: 52.) Much is lost if trust is lost in the public realm. The politico-administrative system as a whole will appear different. It is evident that a high level of trust contributes to its legitimacy. Concerning the citizens’ trust, there are two sides to the coin: trust in politics and trust in institutions. Specific figures are given in Appendix 1 and 2. Although Finnish people trust in the public sector organizations and institutions, they do not trust promises given by politicians. All the three generations are critical towards political decision makers. Even the younger ones estimated that what is promised will not be kept by politicians although they have no experience of political participation. It is alarming that over half of the citizens feel that politicians can’t be trusted. More than 60 % of adults and nearly half of the youngsters were critical towards politicians. Another interesting finding is that the youth estimates voting more worthwhile than the older generation does. Totally 80 % of the young respondents and almost 60 % of adults believed that by voting one can influence matters concerning himself/herself. A

12

positive attitude towards voting might indicate that the political system is considered legitimate. Even if citizens distrust politicians they still feel confidence in the political system for one reason or another. What does measuring trust in institutions tell us? Is it so that if citizens trust in police, courts and politicians, they also trust the ability of these institutions to guarantee the social order, to protect the public interest and to assure the justice in society? And vice versa, if citizens’ trust in societal institutions decreases, will it damage their belief in justice and equality in society? Table 4 depicts the respondents’ views on the trustworthiness of some Finnish institutions. Public organizations and institutions so far enjoy the confidence of ordinary citizens in Finland. Concerning the trustworthiness of Finnish institutions, the differences between the generations were minor. This result might be amazing. The figures resemble each other so much that the findings portray a smooth and simple picture of the trustworthiness of Finnish institutions. Table 4. Trustworthiness of institutions: The views of the three generations Youth Middle-aged Older generation

Trustworthy %

Not trustworthy

%

Trustworthy %

Not trustworthy

%

Trustworthy %

Not trustworthy

%

Courts 81 4 76 7 66 14

Police 80 5 84 6 80 5

Military 78 5 77 5 76 5

Church 54 21 64 13 62 14

Schools 79 3 79 3 80 2

Higher

education 85 1 81 2 83 2

Health

services 77 4 67 9 70 7


What is the message of Table 4? Previous surveys from other countries (Listhaug 1984: 114; Warren 2006: 165) indicate that police (police officers), legal system (judges) and educational system (teachers, professors) and also the military (military officers) are highly ranked. The World Values profile study (Borg et al. 2007) shows that public trust in the police and in the military has increased from 1981 to 2005. We

13

share the opinion that as long as citizens trust in public institutions, the whole society works better. In Table 4 the only significant difference between the generations concerns the trustworthiness of courts. The youth consider them more trustworthy than the older generation. How can this be explained? Maybe the older generation is more skeptical because they have more experience, having themselves come into contact with the things handled in courts. The more life experience they have, the less they seem to consider it trustworthy.

Between the generations the older generation estimates church to be more trustworthy than the youth does. Despite of the differences concerning courts and church, we were surprised by the results. We assumed that differences would have been bigger for example on the level of trust felt towards the schools of different levels, and the police and the military. 5. Conclusions

The basic theme of our paper was ethics and legitimation from the citizens’ perspective. Among the topics discussed here, the main concern was to focus on the elements that are related to the question of legitimation in society. Younger and older citizens’ opinions, attitudes and even future prospects of decent citizenship, justice and equality, and trust in institutions were described in this presentation. The empirical analysis was based on the evidence and the contributions of the data from the two Finnish surveys. The clarification of the empirical results was grounded on the limited theoretical definitions of chosen ethical issues. The citizen surveys described images, opinions and future prospects. Plainly speaking, those images depended on citizens’ expectations of public administration and public services. It is to be admitted that instead of describing one country, more comparative data is needed from the experiences of other countries to get a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of the administrative context and culture affecting ethical assessments. As was anticipated in the beginning of our presentation, the final question is on the role of the generation: whether it really matters, and whether the perceptions of the different generations can be considered distinct from each other. The findings show that in most of the ethically loaded statements, the reactions of the three generations were similar. The explanation based on the generational factor is hence relatively weak. There exist two interpretations, either the age explains less or the age refers to the opposite direction than was expected. However there are a few ethical considerations where the generation seemed to make a difference. The differences between the generations are evident in the following five ethical statements (see the left side of Table 5). The first two belong to the virtues of decent citizenship; the second two refer to a just and equal society; and the last one to trust in institutions. The specific figures are shown in the previous tables 1–4. In Table 5 the

14

main distinctions between the generations are identified and set in a frame of potential tensions of legitimation. How to explain them and what are our main conclusions? Table 5. Ethical distinctions and the tensions of legitimation

Main distinctions between the

generations

Potential tensions of legitimation

- Involvement in politics

- Acceptance of grey market - Growth of disparities in income - Unequal treatment of citizens - Trustworthiness of institutions such as courts, church and health services

- Balance of society is threatened - Morality is loosened - The welfare state is dismantled - Collectivity is weakened - Balance of society is shaken

First, the youth replied significantly more positively than adults to the statement “Involvement in politics”. However, the youth believed that politicians are prone to break their promises. Still, they have a belief in the power of participation and influencing common affairs by an involvement in politics. We may ask whether the youth understand the concept of involvement in politics but in this context we assume that they do so well enough. The middle-aged had the most negative attitude towards the statement. If such alienation continues, the balance of society can be threatened. Secondly, concerning the acceptance of the grey market, the difference between the generations was significant. This result is a confusing one because paying taxes was considered to be at the top of the list on the attributes of a decent citizen by all the generations. Voting and taxpaying are seen as the basic elements of legitimation in society. This gap between the generations is difficult to explain. Does it imply a weakening of morality? Not necessarily, but the risk of it is on the horizon. Thirdly, concerning the growth of disparities in income, there exists a tension between the generations. When asked about increasing income disparities, the Finnish youth feel clearly more confident about the future than the middle-aged and the older generation. What explains these significant differences? One explanation could be life experience or the fact that the youth overall tend to trust to the future. This is a positive sign for the legitimation of society. The youth appreciate public welfare services to be equally available for all. Is it in the realms of possibility if the welfare state will be dismantled? Fourthly, elderly people are exceptionally skeptical towards the statement on the equal treatment of citizens. Are the citizens being divided into winners and losers? As

15

this seems to be an ongoing trend, collectivity and coherence could therefore suffer. We doubt whether there can exist at all any modern western legitime society in the eyes of citizens without justice and equality. Fifthly, the differences between the generations were at the lowest on the theme of trustworthiness of institutions. If administrative institutions do not enjoy the trust of the people, society cannot be considered as highly legitimate. Although the institutions were overall considered trustworthy, as far as it concerns courts, church and health care organizations there were still minor differences between the generations. It is a challenge to retain the trust felt towards politicians and institutions as young citizens receive more and more experience as the members of society. A potential risk is that the balance of society is shaken due to a general lack of confidence.

16

References

Borg, Sami, Kimmo Ketola, Kimmo Kääriäinen, Kati Niemelä & Pertti Suhonen (2007). Uskonto, arvot ja instituutiot. Suomalaiset World Values -tutkimuksissa 1981–2005. [Religion, values and institutions. Finns in the World Values -research 1981–2005.] Tampere: Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto.

Christensen, Tom & Per Laegrid (2005). Trust in Government: The Relative Importance of Service Satisfaction, Political Factors and Demography. Public Performance and Management Review 28: 4, 487–511.

Comte-Sponville, André (1995). A Short Treatise on the Great Virtues: The Uses of Philosophy in Everyday Life. Vintage.

Comte-Sponville, André (2003). A Short Treatise on the Great Virtues: The Uses of Philosophy in Everyday Life. Vintage.

Denhardt, Kathryn (1989). The Management of Ideals: A Political Perspective on Ethics. Public Administration Review 49: march/april, 187–193.

Dworkin, Ronald (2004). Equality of Resources. In: Social Justice, 110–133. Eds. Matthew Clayton & Andrew William. Malden etc. Blackwell Publishing.

Frederickson, H. George & Jeremy David Walling (2001). Research and Knowledge in Administrative Ethics. In: Handbook of Administrative Ethics, 37–58. Ed. Terry L. Cooper. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Garofalo, Charles & Dean Geuras (1999). Ethics in the Public Service: The Moral Mind at Work. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Garofalo, Charles, Dean Geuras, Thomas D. Lynch & Cynthia E. Lynch (2010). Applying Virtue Ethics to the Challenge of Corruption. The Innovation Journal. Available 4.8.2010 in http:www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/virtue-ethics-corruption.htm.

Guy, Mary E. (1990). Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situations. Westport: Quorum Books.

Hart, David K. (1974). Social Equity, Justice, and the Equitable Administrator. Public Administration Review 34: 1, 3−10.

Hart, David K. (2001). Administration and the Ethics of Virtue: In All Things, Choose First Good Character and Then for Technical Expertise. In T.L. Cooper (Ed.): Handbook of Administrative Ethics, 131–150. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Hofstede, Geert (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. London: Sage.

Häyry, Matti. 2002. Hyvä elämä ja oikea käytös: Historiallinen johdatus moraalifilosofiaan [Good Life and Correct Behaviour: Historical Guidance to Moral Philosophy]. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

17

Jansson, Jan-Magnus (1993). Politiikan teoria [Theory of Politics]. Helsinki: Tammi.

Lawton, Alan (1998). Ethical Management for the Public Services. Buckingham. Open University Press.

Lawton, Alan & Alan Doig (2006). Researching Ethics for Public Service Organizations: The View from Europe. Public Integrity 8: 1, 11–33.

Listhaug, Ola (1984). Confidence in Institutions: Findings from the Norwegian Values Study. Acta Sociologica 27: 2, 111–122.

Lynch, Thomas Dexter & Cynthia E. Lynch (2006). Aristotle, MacIntyre, and Virtue Ethics. In: Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The Philosophical Approach, 55–73. Eds. Thomas D. Lynch & Peter L. Cruise. Second Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Lähdesmäki, K. (2010). Hyvää hallintoa – ketä kiinnostaa? Nuorten käsityksiä hyvästä hallinnosta ja reilusta yhteiskunnasta. [Good Governance – Who Cares? Youth perspectives on good governance and fair society]. Proceedings of the University of Vaasa. Research Papers 292. Vaasa University.

Menzel, Donald C. (2007). Ethics Management for Public Administrators: Building Organizations of Integrity. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Morgan, D.F. (2001). The Public Interest. In: Handbook of Administrative Ethics, 151–178. Ed. Terry L. Cooper. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.

Pierson, Christopher. 1996. The Modern State. London: Routledge.

Rawls, John (1973). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. Massachusetts.

Rawls, John (2001). Constitutional Liberty and the Concept of Justice. Original 1963. In: Collected Papers: John Rawls, 73–95. Ed. Samuel Freeman. London: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, John (2004). On Justice as Fairness. Original 1958. In: Social Jusice, 49–84. Eds. Matthew Clayton & Andrew Williams. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Salminen, Ari (2006). Accountability, values and the ethical principles of public service. The views of Finnish legislators. International Review of Administrative Sciences 72: 2, 171–185.

Salminen, Ari & Rinna Ikola-Norrbacka (2009). Kuullaanko meitä? Eettinen hallinto ja kansalaiset. [Are we being heard? Ethical governance and citizens.] Proceedings of the University of Vaasa. Research Papers 288. Vaasa University.

Salminen, Ari & Rinna Ikola-Norrbacka (2010). Trust, Good Governance and Unethical Actions in Finnish Public Administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Forthcoming.

Six, Frederique & Leo Huberts (2008). Judging a Public Official’s Integrity. In: Ethics and Integrity of Governance: Perspectives Across Frontiers, 65–82. Eds. Leo

18

W.J.C. Huberts, Jeroen Maesschalck & Carole L. Jurkiewicz. Cornwall: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Solomon, Robert C. & Mark C. Murphy (eds.) (1990). What is Justice? Classic and contemporary readings. Oxford University Press. New York 1990.

Stivers, Camilla (2001). Citizenship Ethics in Public Administration. In Handbook of Administrative Ethics, 583–602. Ed. T.L. Cooper. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Thomas, Geoffrey (2000). Introduction to Political Philosophy. London: Duckworth.

Van de Walle, Steven (2008). Perceptions of Corruption as Distrust? Cause and Effect in Attitudes Toward Government. In: Ethics and Integrity of Governance: Perspectives Across Frontiers, 215–236. Eds. Leo W.J.C. Huberts, Jeroen Maesschalck & Carole L. Jurkiewicz. Cornwall: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Van de Walle, Steven, Steven Van Roosbroek & Geert Bouckaert (2008). Trust in the Public Sector: Is There Any Evidence for a Long-Term Decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences 74: 1, 47–64.

Villa, Dana (2001). Socratic Citizenship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Warren, Mark E. (2006). Democracy and Deceit: Regulating Appearances of Corruption. American Journal of Political Science 50: 1, 160–174.

19

Appendix 1. THE CITIZEN SURVEY 2008. UNIVERSITY OF VAASA, FINLAND.

The survey is a part of the research program “Citizens first? Ethical Government in

Terms of Citizens” (http://www.uwasa.fi/eettinenhallinto/english/) in the University

of Vaasa, Finland. The three-year program is funded by the Academy of Finland.

The questions 2, 7, 11 and 14 in whole or in part were selected from the questionnaire

form. The questions with percentage shares are presented below. 2. How would you describe a good citizen?

Srongly Disagree Neither agree, Agree Strongly

disagree somewhat nor disagree somewhat agree

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

A good citizen… 1. votes in elections (n=1987) 2,8 4,9 12,2 36,4 43,7 2. pays taxes (n=1989) 0,8 0,8 2,6 22,7 73,2 3. does not accept grey market (n=1986) 1,1 2,2 8,5 31,5 56,8 4. obeys the law as well as possible (n=1979) 0,6 1,0 2,0 25,5 70,9 8. is involved in politics and political parties

(n=1982) 19,8 32,6 36,4 8,8 2,4 15. assorts waste according to the

instructions (n=1990) 1,5 3,1 9,6 46,4 39,4 16. tries to save energy (n=1984) 1,1 1,7 6,8 44,6 45,9 17. feels responsibility for the

situation of the globe (n=1989) 1,2 3,2 12,8 45,1 37,7 18. avoids the waste of natural resources

(n=1983) 1,1 1,8 9,2 45,3 42,6 19. appreciates any honest work (n=1987) 0,6 1,3 4,1 29,1 64,9 21. is tolerant towards immigrants

(n=1979) 3,6 7,6 23,1 41,6 24,1

7. How trustworthy do You perceive the following Finnish institutions and

organizations to be?

Not at all Not very Somewhat Quite Very

trustworthy trustworthy trustworthy trustworthy trustworthy

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. Courts (n=1980) 3,3 7,9 19,0 55,8 14,0 2. Hospitals and health centres (n=1991) 1,6 6,4 22,8 58,5 10,7 6. Church (n=1962) 5,6 7,8 24,3 46,2 16,1 8. Military (n=1976) 1,6 3,9 19,1 50,2 25,2 9. Police (n=1992) 1,7 3,7 13,4 52,7 28,6 10. Elementary and comprehensive

schools (n=1983) 0,5 2,2 17,7 61,8 17,9 11. Universities and polytechnics (n=1969) 0,5 1,8 15,9 63,6 18,0

20

11. What do you think of the following statements?



(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

2. Voting is worthwhile, because one can influence matters concerning

himself/herself (n=1984) 6,5 17,2 19,8 36,1 20,4 4. What is promised, will be kept by politicians (n=1982) 21,3 40,1 26,7 9,7 2,2

14. How do you consider the following statements related to changing society?



(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

2. Finnish society is becoming more unjust (n=1983) 3,1 20,4 29,8 33,5 13,2 4. Unequal treatment of citizens is going to be more common (n=1970) 1,9 13,5 24,1 40,7 19,8 5. Disparties in incomes will increase (n=1984) 0,2 1,5 5,5 36,7 56,2 8. Inequality shall not hurt the least-advantaged (n=1964) 0,8 2,0 7,2 31,6 58,4

21

Appendix 2. THE YOUTH SURVEY 2009. UNIVERSITY OF VAASA, FINLAND.

The survey is a part of the research program “Citizens first? Ethical Government in

Terms of Citizens” (http://www.uwasa.fi/eettinenhallinto/english/) in the University

of Vaasa, Finland. The three-year program is funded by the Academy of Finland.

The questions 1, 4, 7 and 9 in whole or in part were selected from the questionnaire

form. The questions with percentage shares are presented below. 1. How would you describe a good adult citizen?



(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

A good adult citizen…

1. votes in elections (n=1126) 1,8 3,4 21,0 46,6 27,3 2. is involved in politics and confidential posts (n=1122) 6,3 26,4 53,9 11,8 1,6 5. assorts waste according to the instructions (n=1125) 1,6 5,1 19,2 45,6 28,5 6. tries to save energy (n=1120) 1,2 3,4 17,1 47,3 31,1 7. feels responsibility for the situation of the globe (n=1126) 1,7 5,8 25,9 46,4 20,2 8. avoids the waste of natural resources (n=1121) 1,2 4,2 19,4 49,1 26,2 11. is tolerant towards immigrants (n=1125) 4,1 7,1 18,8 35,2 34,8 13. obeys the law as well as possible (n=1127) 0,7 1,2 5,9 33,9 58,2 14. pays taxes (n=1122) 1,0 0,6 5,4 26,9 66,0 15. does not accept doing ”black work” (n=1128) 2,9 9,0 31,0 34,4 22,6 16. appreciates any honest work (n=1123) 0,7 3,0 12,8 38,4 45,1

4. How do you consider following statements concerning society and the possible

changes. Srongly Disagree Neither agree, Agree Strongly


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

4. Finnish society is becoming more unjust (n=1118) 6,5 27,1 46,2 15,0 5,1 5. Disparities in incomes will increase (n= 1122) 1,6 9,0 48,1 33,4 7,8 6. Inequality shall not hurt the least-advantaged (n=1105) 1,5 4,9 31,0 40,6 22,0 7. Unequal treatment of citizens is going to be more common (n=1096) 3,8 20,7 52,2 18,3 4,9

22

7. How do you consider following statements concerning politics and

participation. Srongly Disagree Neither agree, Agree Strongly


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. Voting is worthwhile, because one can influence matters concerning himself/herself (n=1126) 1,8 5,2 12,3 45,0 35,7 3. What is promised will be kept (n=1124) 12,5 35,8 30,5 12,9 8,4

9. How trustworthy do you perceive the following societal institutions?

Not at all Not very Somewhat Quite Very

trustworthy trustworthy trustworthy trustworthy trustworthy

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

3. Judiciary and courts (n=1120) 0,4 3,4 14,8 51,3 30,0 4. Elementary and comprehensive schools (n=1120) 0,3 2,4 18,6 59,0 19,7 5. Universities and polytechnics (n=1118) 0,1 1,3 13,8 59,0 25,8 6. Hospitals and health centres (n=1119) 0,6 3,8 18,5 50,9 26,1 7. Police (n=1120) 1,1 3,4 15,4 47,2 32,9 8. Military (n=1119) 1,2 3,7 16,9 45,2 33,1 9. Church (n=1118) 8,6 12,4 25,5 34,5 19,0

ethics and legitimation: a citizen perspective...university of vaasa, finland e-mail:...

Documents