FINAL · College of Asia and the Pacific · Crawford School of Public Policy

Public Sector Ethics

POGO-8021
Semester 1 2014 6 Units In Person Delivery Modified 30/01/2014

To print this course outline, use the "Syllabus" menu in the top left.

 Meeting Times

Seminars
Monday, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Acton Theatre

Please Note: Monday 24th March, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Brindabella Theatre

 Contact Information

Lecturer: Professor Richard Mulgan

Email: Richard.Mulgan@anu.edu.au
Office: 2.34
Phone: 61252561

Office Hours
Thursday, 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM, Stanner 2.34

Senior Student Engagement Coordinator: Amy De Vries

Email: amy.devries@anu.edu.au
Office: Room 3.21, Crawford Building
Phone: 6125 5536

Student Engagement Assistant: Roze Hisham

Email: roze.hisham@anu.edu.au
Office: Room 3.15, Crawford Building
Phone: 6125 2172

 Description
How can public leaders exercise ethical leadership, and how can we promote clean government, given the many excuses for 'dirty
hands' made by government leaders? This course provides students with an introduction to debates over public sector ethics,
focusing on the roles and responsibilities of public servants and their relationships to politicians and others sharing public power. The
unit uses practical examples and case studies of ethical problems from across the public sector, blending Australian and international
material so that students can learn from a variety of policy frameworks appropriate to the regulation of public conduct. Students will
examine core theories of ethics with the aim of relating these to prevailing theories of public policy and practices of public
administration. They will also examine various approaches to codifying and enforcing public sector ethics.
 Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this course, students will be able to

1. critically understand the main concepts and theories in public sector ethics;
2. critically apply ethical concepts and theories to examples of public sector practice;
3. access relevant source materials on public sector ethics;
4. critically understand the role of ethics in professional public sector practice;
5. apply critical analytical capacity to answering questions on public sector ethics.

 Schedule
Week 1 (17 February) Introduction

Week 2 (24 February) The ethically responsible public servant

Week 3 (3 March) Public and private sectors contrasted

Week 4 (17 March) (i)Theories of ethical judgment

(ii)The problem of 'dirty hands'

Week 5 (24 March) Truth, lies and spin

Week 6 (31 March) Politicians and public servants

Week 7 (28 April) Whistleblowing

Week 8 (5 May) Conflicts of interest

Week 9 (12 May) Codes of conduct (pubilc servants)

Week 10 (19 May) Codes of conduct (politicians)

Week 11 (26 May) Integrity systems

Course Description

Like most subject headings in the social science, ‘ethics’ has a variety of meanings and is impossible to define categorically. In this
course, we will understand it to refer to decision-making which involves the application of moral values or principles in professional
contexts (‘moral’, of course, is another, equally slippery term). ‘Public sector ethics’, thus, refers to decision-making by professionals
in the public sector. All decisions involve some value component, if it is only the pursuit of political goals, such as winning elections,
or personal objectives, such as advancing one’s career. In practice, we reserve ‘ethics’ for those decisions and values that have a
wider, moral purpose, such as the pursuit of the public interest or public value. More specifically, public sector ethics covers a range
of values, many of them relating to the proper conduct of government processes, values such as ‘fairness’, ‘impartiality’ and’
integrity’. It can also refer to values more concerned with the outcome of government actions, such as ‘efficiency’ and ‘the public
good’.

Public sector professionals include a number of different professions that may share the same basic values but also have different
public expectations placed on them. One important division is between career public servants or public ‘officials’ and politicians,
particularly elected politicians in democratic governments. The focus of this course is primarily on the ethics of public officials, but
we also cover some ethical policy choices which politicians may be asked to make, as well as the ethical tensions that can arise
between career public servants and their political masters. However, we do not directly consider the professional ethics of other
professions, such as lawyers, teachers and health professionals, some of whom are employed in the public sector but whose
members have their own independent sets of values. The initial sessions of the course after the introduction (weeks 2 and 3)
therefore concentrate on the nature of public service professionalism and the contrast between ethical expectations in the public and
private sectors.
Problems of professional ethics come in two broad categories. The first covers ethical dilemmas, where the issue is to decide the
ethically best course of action. Ethical dilemmas typically involve a difficult choice between competing principles or values, where
there is no obviously right answer. For example, is it ethical for government leaders or officials to deceive the public in the interests of
public safety? When, if at all, should a subordinate official disobey a lawful instruction from a superior? Such questions have formed
part of the traditional subject matter of the branch of philosophy known as ‘ethics’ or ‘moral philosophy’. We devote a number of
sessions to some of these questions (weeks 4-8).

Ethical dilemmas raise fundamental issue issues about the nature of ethical reasoning. Without going into too much technical
philosophical detail, we need to be aware of the main varieties of ethical theory, including consequentialism (utilitarianism),
deontology (Kantianism) and virtue-based ethics (Aristotelianism) and how they affect the approach taken to resolving ethical
dilemmas.

The second category of ethical problem concerns not so much the clash of competing conceptions of what is right as the contrast
between doing what is right (assuming that is agreed on) and doing what is wrong. Here we move away from applied philosophy to
more practical issues in political science and public administration. How can ethical values be enforced? Are they more a matter of
institutional culture and education or is there a role for strict rules and external enforcement? What part can be played by formal
codes of conduct for public servants (week 9) and for politicians (week 10)? How can external integrity agencies help enforce a
culture of ethical practice (week 11)?

All important and interesting question in ethics are open-ended and cannot be answered conclusively. Teaching sessions will
therefore place an emphasis on questions and discussion, both in the full class, and in small groups. The success of the class
depends on everyone’s willingness to contribute to discussion. The system of class assignments will provide a core of well-prepared
participants for each session but all students are encouraged to study the readings and questions before each class. To assist with
note-taking, brief PowerPoints covering the main points will be available after the class, but not before.

Topics and Readings

Week 1: Introduction

This week we introduce the administration of the course, setting out its objectives and allocating assignments. We also introduce the
contested subject matter of ethics in public policy, defining it as a study of the ethical problems that may confront those engaged in
the public sector, both public officials and politicians. Ethics covers both ethical dilemmas between competing values (alternative
conceptions of the right or the good) as well as the choice between right and wrong. Examples of both types of issue are discussed.

Week 2: The ethically responsible public servant

This week we gain an overview of the role played by ethics in the professional life of the public official, particularly in liberal
democracies. We examine its source in the necessity of administrative discretion and look at classic articles by Carl Friedrich and
Dennis Thompson about the extent of such discretion.

Set Readings:

Friedrich, C J 1940, ‘Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility’, Public Policy vol. 1, pp. 3-24.

Thompson, D F 1985, ‘The possibility of administrative ethics’, Public Administration Review vol. 45, no. 5, pp 555-61.

Dobel, J P 2005, ‘Public management as ethics’ in E Ferlie, LE Lynn & C Pollitt (eds), The Oxford handbook of public management,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 156-81.

Assignment Questions (Group A)

(i) How much discretion do individual public officials have?

(ii) What are the main elements in the ‘classic model’ of public service values as outlined by Dobel?
Further Reading:

Finer, H 1941, ‘Administrative responsibility in democratic government’, Public Administration Review vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 335-50.

Behn, R 1998, ‘What right do public managers have to lead?’, Public Administration Review vol 58, no 3, pp 209-24.

Dobel, J P 1999, Public Integrity Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore.

Rhodes, R A W & Wanna, J 2009, ‘Bringing the politics back in: public value in Westminster parliamentary government’, Public
Administration vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 161-83.

Week 3: The contrast between the public and private sectors

This week we consider the contrast between ethical and accountability demands on managers in the public and private sectors
respectively. Some of the values and ethical standards that public officials need to observe are common to organisations in all
sectors, but some are distinctive, or distinctively prominent, in only one. How far is the ‘new public management’ (NPM), which
advocates private sector practices in government, compatible with public service values?

Set Readings:

van der Wal, Z, de Graaf, G and Lasthuizen, K 2008, ‘What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational
values of the public and private sector’’, Public Administration vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 465-82.

Mulgan, R 2000, ‘Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 59, no.
1, pp. 87-97

Lawton, A 2004, ‘Public service ethics in a changing world’, Futures vol 37, pp. 231-43

Assignment Questions (Group B)

(i) What are the main differences between the ethical and accountability demands on public and on private sector managers?

(ii) To what extent does the ‘new public management’ (NPM) threaten public service values?

Further Reading

Allison, G 1986, ‘Public and private management: are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant aspects’ in S. Lane (ed.), Current
issues in public administration, St Martin’s Press, New York, pp.184-200.

Shergold, P 1997, ‘Ethics and the changing nature of public service’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 56, no. 1, pp.119-
24.

Diefenbach, T 2009, ‘New Public Management in public sector organizations: the dark side of managerial “enlightenment”’, Public
Administration vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 892-909.

van der Wal, Z 2011, ‘The content and context of organizational ethics’, Public Administration vol 89, no. 2, pp 644-60.

Mulgan, R 2003, Holding power to account (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke), ch. 4

Week 4 (i): Theories of ethical judgment

This week we consider three approaches to ethical reasoning which have been used in public sector ethics:
consequentialism/utilitarianism, deontology/Kantianism, and virtue-based/Aristotelianism. We identify the main differences between
each approach and how each approach contributes to analysing different types of ethical problem.

Set Readings:

Sullivan, E and Segers, M 2007, ‘Ethical issues and public policy’, ch 21 in F. Fisher, G. Miller and M. Sidney eds, Handbook of public
policy analysis CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 309-27.

Christensen, T and Laegrid, P 2011, ‘Ethics and administrative reforms’, Public Management Review vol. 13, no. 3, esp pp. 460-63.

Beauchamp, T and Childress, J 2001, ‘Utilitarianism’, ‘Kantianism’, ‘Moral Excellence’, selected extracts from Principles of Biomedical
Ethics. 5th edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 340-355, 43-51

Assignment Questions (Group C)

(i) What are the main differences between consequentialism/utilitarianism and deontology/Kantianism?

(ii) In what main respects does Aristotelian virtue-based ethics differ from consequentialism/utilitarianism and also from
deontology/Kantianism?

Further Reading:

Sandel, M J 2009, Justice: what’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

Darwall, S L 2007, 'Theories of ethics' in R G Frey and C H Wellman (eds), Companion to Applied Ethics (Wiley Blackwell, internet)

Mill, J S 1861, Utilitarianism

Kant, I 1785, Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Week 4 (ii): The problem of ‘dirty hands’

This week we also look at one of the core ethical dilemmas in public ethics, whether the wider public interest requires political leaders
to make decisions, such as sacrificing innocent lives, which would be considered immoral if made by individual citizens. We look at
the classic exposition of this view in the Italian political theorist Machiavelli, as well as some modern applications of what has
become known as the problem of ‘dirty hands’, particularly in relation to recent debates on the political justification of torture.

Set Readings:

Price, T 2008, ‘Machiavellian necessity’, from Leadership Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145-151.

Garrett, S A 1994, ‘Political leadership and the problem of “dirty hands”’, Ethics and International Affairs , vol. 8, pp. 159-175.

Steinhoff, U 2006, ‘Torture – the case for Dirty Harry and against Alan Dershowitz’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 3, pp.
337-53.

Assignment Questions (Group D):

(i) Why, in Machiavelli’s view, must leaders be prepared to act immorally?

(ii) On what grounds might state torture be justifiable?

Further Reading:

Walzer, M 1973, ‘Political action: the problem of dirty hands’, Philosophy and Public Affairs , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 160–180.

Sandel, M. J. 2009, ‘The greatest happiness principle; utilitarianism’, ch 2 in Justice: what’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, New York, 2010, pp. 31-51.

Tindale, C W 2005, ‘Tragic choices: reaffirming absolutes in the torture debate’, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 19,
no. 2, pp. 209-222.

Week 5: Trust, lies and spin

This week we look at the issue of truth and deception in public life. This is another application of the ‘dirty hands’ argument that
political leaders may sometimes be justified in breaking moral rules in the public interest. It also arises in relation to the question of
political rhetoric or ‘spin’ which can involve misleading the public without necessarily engaging in outright falsehood.

Set Readings:

Bok, S 1978, ‘Lies for the public good’, ch 12 in Lying: moral choice in public and private life. Pantheon Books, pp. 165-181.
Manson, N C 2012, ‘Making sense of spin’, Journal of Applied Philosophy vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 200-12.

Mulgan, R 2007, ‘Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice’, Public Administration vol. 85, no 3, pp. 569-86.

Assignment Questions (Group A):

(i) What arguments can governments use to justify lying to their citizens?

(ii) Is ‘spin’ incompatible with the public servant’s commitment to impartiality and objectivity?

Further Reading:

Sandel, M J 2009, ‘What matters is the motive’, ch 5 in Justice: what’s the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, pp.
103-139.

Nolan C J 2004, ‘Bodyguard of lies’, in Nolan ed Ethics and Statecraft, Praeger, Portsmouth, pp 35-57.

Humphreys, J 2005, ‘The Iraq dossier and the meaning of spin’, Parliamentary Affairs vol. 58, no 1, pp 156-70

Week 6: Politicians and public servants

This week we further examine the relationship between career public servants and elected politicians, particularly under ‘Westminster’
conventions of public service neutrality (already touched on in weeks two and five). How far should officials be responsive to their
political masters? Are they ever entitled to resist political instructions in the public interest? What form can such resistance take?

Set Readings:

Uhr, J 2005, ‘National security and government: at war with ethics’, ch 7 in Terms of trust, University of New South Wales Press,
Sydney, pp. 159-86, 222-3.

Keating, M 1999, ‘The public service: independence, responsibility and responsiveness’, Australian Journal of Public Administration
vol 58, no. 1, pp. 39-47.

Mulgan, R 2008, ‘How much responsiveness is too much or too little?’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 67, no 3, pp.
345-56.

Assignment Questions (Group B):

(i) What were the main issues in the ‘Ponting affair’?

(ii) What limits, if any, are there to the public servant’s duty to be ‘responsive’ to the government of the day?

Additional Reading:

Finer, H 1941, ‘Administrative responsibility in democratic government’, Public Administration Review vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 335-50.

Weller, P 2001, Australia’s Mandarins. The Frank and the Fearless? Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Shergold, P. 2004. ‘“Lackies, careerists, political stooges”? Personal reflections on the current state of public service leadership.’
Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 3–14.

Week 7:Whistleblowing

This week we look further at the issue of whistleblowing or public interest disclosure, which we have already touched on with the
Ponting affair and the limits to public service responsiveness. Whistleblowing can take many forms, not all of them public or
sensational. The internet has opened up new opportunities for whistleblowing, as demonstrated by the phenomenon of WikiLeaks.

Set Readings:

Dusseyer, I, Mumford, S and Sullivan G, 2011, ‘Reporting corrupt practices in the public interest: innovative approaches to
whistleblowing’ ch 23 in in A Graycar and R G Smith (eds), Handbook of global research and practice in corruption Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp. 429-62.
Hedin, U C and Mansson S A 2012, 'Whistleblowing processes in Swedish public organisations - complaints and
consequences', European Journal of Social Work vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 151-67

Appleby G, Banister J and Olijnyk A 2013, 'New whistleblower law exposed old inadequacy', Australian Financial Review 26 June

Hood, C 2011, ‘From FOI world to WikiLeaks world: a new chapter in the transparency story?’, Governance vol. 24, no. 4, pp 635-8

Assignment Questions (Group C):

(i) What is ‘whistleblowing’: to whom and about what is the whistle blown?

(ii) What are the main disincentives to whistleblowing?

Further Reading:

Brown, A J (ed) 2008, ‘Summary’ in Whistleblowing in the Australian public sector, ANU E Press, Canberra, pp. xxii-xxxviii.

Brown, A J 2007, ‘Privacy and the public interest disclosure: when is it reasonable to protect ‘whistleblowing' to the media’?, Privacy
Law Bulletin vol. 4, no 2, pp. 1-10

Roberts, A 2012, ‘Wikileaks: the illusion of transparency’, International Review of Administrative Sciences vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 116-33.

Week 8: Conflicts of interest

This week we look at a familiar issue in public sector ethics, the need to avoid conflicts of interest, which concerns both politicians
and public servants. What are the interests between which conflict is problematic? Are all non-public interests necessarily
illegitimate? Does the notion of conflict of interest reflect one particular view of the role of government? How are conflicts to be
identified and how are they to be dealt with?

Set Readings:

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 2003, Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service OECD,
Paris pp. 22-38

Stark, A 2013, ‘Mirror images; conflict of interest in politics and psychology’ in H G Frederickson & R G Ghere (eds), Ethics in Public
Management M E Sharpe, Armonk & London, pp. 172-92

State Services Authority Victoria 2009, Conflict of Interest Policy Framework

http://www.ssa.vic.gov.au/images/stories/product_files/136_PSSC_ConflictIntFrame.pdf pp. 1-9

Assignment Questions (Group D):

(i) Is the existence of a conflict of interest (actual, apparent or potential) a matter of objective fact or contestable opinion?

(ii) What are the main methods of managing conflicts of interest?

Further Reading:

Hutton, W L and Massey, A 2006, ‘Professional ethics and public service: can professionals serve two masters?’, Public Money and
Management vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 23-30

Brody, H 2011, ‘Clarifying conflict of interest’, American Journal of Bioethics vol. 11, no 1, pp 23 -8

Week 9: Formulating codes of conduct (public servants)

This week we look at the trend for drawing up codes of conduct which accelerated in the 1990s in both the public and the private
sectors. We discuss the reasons behind this trend and its link with the managerial movement. Do the codes enshrine traditional
values or do they also include more managerial values? What role do codes play in encouraging public sector integrity?

Set Readings:
OECD 2000, Trust in government. Ethics measures in OECD countries, OECD, Paris, pp. 28-39.

Nolan, Lord 1998, ‘Just and honest government’, Public Administration and Development vol 18, pp. 447-55.

Mulgan, R and Wanna, J 2011, ‘Developing cultures of integrity in the public and private sectors’ ch 22 in A Graycar and R G Smith
(eds), Handbook of global research and practice in corruption Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 416-28.

Assignment Questions (Group A):

(i) What factors prompted a renewed interest in codifying public sector values?

(ii) Do public sector codes of conduct give more emphasis to 'classic' or 'managerial' values?

Further Reading:

Benson, G 1989, ‘Codes of ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics vol. 8, no. 5, 305-19.

Kinchin, N 2007, ‘More than writing on the wall: evaluating the role that codes of ethics play in securing accountability of public sector
decision-makers’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol 66, no. 1, pp. 112-20.

Week 10: Formulating codes of conduct (politicians)

This week we continue our examination of codes of conduct by looking at the case of parliamentarians/legislators as distinct from
public service officials. Politicians have always adopted looser standards of ethical behaviour than public servants and have resisted
external supervision of their conduct. We discuss recent moves to codify their ethical principles and to introduce a form of external
monitoring.

Set Readings:

Hunt, M 2000, ‘Parliament and ethical behaviour’ ch 3 in R A Chapman (ed), Ethics in public service for the new millennium, Ashgate,
Aldershot pp. 23-34.

Williams, R 2002, ‘Conduct unbecoming: the regulation of legislative ethics in Britain and the United States’, Parliamentary Affairs vol .
55, no. 4, pp. 611-25.

Commonwealth Parliament, House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests 2011, chs 3 and 5 in
Draft code of conduct for members of Parliament

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pmi/cocreport.htm

see also Nolan (above week 9, p 454)

Assignment Questions (Group B):

(i) What factors militate against the formal regulation of the ethical behaviour of legislators/parliamentarians?

(ii) Does the United Kingdom Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards provide a valuable model for regulating the ethical behaviour
of members of parliament?

Further Reading:

Uhr, J 2006, ‘Professional ethics for politicians’ in D Saint-Martin and F Thompson (eds), Public Ethics and Governance: Standards
and Practices in Comparative Perspective Emerald Group Publishing (internet publication), pp. 207-25.

Potter, A 2006, ‘Political ethics and responsible government’, D Saint-Martin and F Thompson (eds), Public Ethics and Governance:
Standards and Practices in Comparative Perspective Emerald Group Publishing (internet publication), pp. 71-91.

Week 11: Integrity systems

This week we look at government-wide systems that encourage public sector integrity, particularly ‘integrity agencies’ that monitor
and punish breaches of public sector ethics. Some of these agencies are longstanding, such as government auditors, others are more
recent but well-established, such as ombudsmen. Many such agencies have other, wider regulatory tasks as well as integrity
 monitoring. Some are more custom-built for integrity purposes, such as anti-corruption agencies which have become very popular
over the last decade.

Set Readings:

Mulgan, R 2003, ‘Government auditors’ and ‘Investigation and monitoring’ in Holding Power to Account Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, pp. 83-98.

de Sousa, L 2010, ‘Anti-corruption agencies: between empowerment and irrelevance’, Crime, Law and Social Change col. 53, pp. 5-22.

Head, B.W., 2012. ‘The contribution of integrity agencies to good governance’, Policy Studies , 33 (1), 7-20.

Assignment Questions (Groups C and D):

(i) What are the respective roles of government auditors and ombudsmen in preventing unethical behaviour?

(ii) What conditions are needed for anti-corruption agencies to succeed in reducing corruption?

Further Reading:

Brown, A J and Head, B 2005, ‘Institutional capacity and choice in Australia’s integrity systems’, Australian Journal of Public
Administration vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 84-95.

Meagher, P 2005, ‘Anti-corruption agencies: rhetoric versus reality’, Journal of Policy Reform vol. 8, no. 1, pp 69-103.

 Materials

Reading Brick
Additional Resources
Electronic Journals:

Australian Journal of Public Administration

Ethics and International Affairs

Ethics and Information Technology

Ethics and the Environment

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Journal of Political Philosophy

Journal of Public Administration Theory

Philosophy and Public Affairs

Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly

Public Administration Review

Public Administration

Public Administration and Development

Websites:
 Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics: www.arts.unsw.edu.au/aapae

Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, ANU: www.cappe.edu.au

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), NSW Government www.icac.nsw.gov.au/publications-and-resources/

Australian Public Service Commission www.apsc.gov.au/ethics

American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) www.aspanet.org

Center for Public Integrity: www.publicintegrity.org

Center for Global Ethics and Politics: Temple University, USA: www.temple.edu/cgep

UK Committee on Standards in Public Life: www.public-standards.gov.uk

Government of Canada: Public Service Integrity Officewww.psic-ispc.gc.ca

Institute for Global Ethics: www.globalethics.org

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Directorate for Public

Governance; ethics and anti-corruption program: www.oecd.org/daf/nocorruption.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, USA: http://plato.stanford.edu

US Office of Government Ethics: www.usoge.gov

Transparency International (TI): www.transparency.org

World Bank: Topics: Governance and public sector management web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS

 Assessment Overview

Summary
Type Weight Learning Outcome Notes

Class Assignments (3) 50 % 1, 5 600 words each

Due at relevant class

Final essay 50 % 1,2,3,4,5

Grading Scale
According to the ANU policy on assessment (https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_004603), the standards that apply
to High Distinction, Distinction, Credit and Pass in all coursework courses are as follows:

Grade Range Notes

HD 80- Work of exceptional quality, which demonstrates comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, mastery of relevant skills,
100% sophisticated or original critical and conceptual analysis, and outstanding quality in clarity, precision and presentation of work.

D 70- Work of superior quality, which demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, proficiency in
79% relevant skills, and analytical and conceptual ability of a high order.

C 60- Work of good quality, which displays a good understanding of the subject matter and a sound grasp of relevant skills.
69%

P 50- Work of satisfactory quality, which displays an adequate understanding of most of the subject matter and a sufficient grasp of
59% relevant skills.
 Grade Range Notes

N 0-49% Work which is incomplete or displays an inadequate understanding of the subject matter or an inadequate grasp of relevant skills.

 Assessment Items

Class Assignments

The class will be divided into four groups (A, B, C and D) and students in each group will individually (no group work required)
prepare assignments for three classes spread through the course (Group A in weeks 2, 5 and 9; Group B in weeks 3, 6 and 10;
Group C in weeks 4 (i), 7 and 11; Group D in weeks 4 (ii), 8 and 11). Students will be asked to contribute to class discussion on
the basis of their assignments.

Each assignment should be around 600 words in total and should contain answers to the questions set for that class. Some
questions may require more words than others. Each question can be answered satisfactorily from the required readings in the
brick – there is no need for further reading. Answers should be written in paragraphs of connected prose without bullet points,
though headings may be used. There is no need for a separate introduction or conclusion. Direct quotation from the academic
sources should be kept to a minimum.

The premium is on clear and concise expression. Imagine you are writing for a busy superior who wants the key issues explained
in no more than two pages.

Assignments must be handed in at the relevant class. Late assignments will not be accepted because they could benefit unfairly
from class discussion. Students unable, for good reason, to attend the class as scheduled may submit their assignments to the
lecturer by email in time for the class. Alternatively, they should arrange to submit an assignment for a subsequent class.

Assessment criteria:

Understanding of key concepts (learning outcome 1)

Quality of critical analysis (learning outcome 5)

Focus on the questions asked (learning outcome 5)

Clarity of organisational structure (learning outcome 5)

Appropriate and accurate use of sources (learning outcome 5)

Compliance with the word limit (plus or minus 10%)

Final Essay

Essay topic: Critically analyse a particular case or problem in public sector ethics (3000 words).

The particular case could be an actual instance of an ethical dilemma or of ethical wrongdoing which can be analysed in terms of
some of the themes and arguments of the course. It could be an example of an initiative to improve ethical practice within a
particular organisation, which may have failed or succeeded for reasons suggested during the course. The particular problem
could be a failure of ethical practice within an organisation for which an institutional remedy can be proposed. It could involve
 comparison between ethical practices in different countries. Students are encouraged to discuss their proposed topic with the
lecturer at any time during the course. They should also read more widely around the chosen topic, following up references and
websites suggested in the course outline.

Due date: Tuesday 10 June

Assessment criteria:

Understanding and application of relevant key concepts and theories from the course (learning outcomes 1, 2 and 4)

Extent of research materials used and referenced (learning outcome 3)

Appropriate and accurate use of sources (learning outcomes 3 and 5)

Quality of critical analysis ((learning outcome 5)

Clarity of organizational structure (learning outcome 5)

Compliance with the word limit (plus or minus 10%)

Turnitin
Turnitin Course ID: 7317943

Turnitin Password: pogo8021

 Course Expectations

Wattle
All courses at the Crawford school use the ANU’s online learning environment, Wattle. Each course will have its own unique
Wattle site, which is accessible only to staff and students enrolled in that course. Lecturers use Wattle in different ways, which
may include lecture recordings, lecture notes, further reading suggestions, and discusssions on their course Wattle sites.

You will also have access to the Crawford Main Wattle site which contains Crawford School policies and resources to support
your study, including the Styleguide, assignment cover sheet, past course outlines and academic skills resources.

For help with Wattle, go to https://wattle.anu.edu.au/help.php

Referencing and formatting requirements

Students are required to reference all words/ideas and opinions of others, using the Crawford School Style (a Harvard in-text
referencing style). Details of this style can be found in The Crawford School Styleguide, available in hard copy from Academic
Skills Advisors and online in the Crawford Main Wattle site at http://wattlecourses.anu.edu.au/mod/resource/view.php?
id=119400

Assignments should conform to the formatting instructions provided in the Crawford Styleguide. To make this easier, a template
in the form of a Microsoft Word document set up with the appropriate margins, font, line and paragraph spacing can be
downloaded from https://anu.campusconcourse.com/get_file?file_id=60.

Assignment submission
For all written work:
1. Ensure your assignment complies with the Crawford Styleguide, (get_file?file_id=388) and include the Assignment cover
sheet (get_file?file_id=387).
2. Assignments should be submitted via the Course Wattle site
3. An identical copy must also be submitted through the Turnitin web site www.turnitin.com (http://www.turnitin.com), and all
work is screened using Turnitin’s Originality Reports.
Students are able to view the reports on their drafts before final submission, to improve their academic writing practice.
Full details on the use of Turnitin are available on the Crawford Main Wattle site.
 The Turnitin Course ID and password for this course are in the Assessment Items section of this course outline.
Your Academic Skills advisor can also help you with using Turnitin effectively.
4. Course Convenors will contact you about marked assignments return.

Extensions and Late Submissions

Extensions can only be given by the subject lecturer. Presentation of a certificate from a medical practitioner or from the ANU
Counselling Centre is required. Part-time students requesting extensions due to pressure of work need to provide email and phone
contact details for their work supervisor. Requests for extensions must be made before the due date of submission. Late
submission, without approved extension, will incur a penalty of 5/100 marks per day including weekends.

Student responsibilty
a. Student feedback on and formal evaluation of subject

All courses will be evaluated using the Student Experience of Learning and Teaching surveys, administered by Statistical Services
at the ANU. These surveys will be offered online, and students will be notified by email to their ANU address when the surveys are
available in each course. Feedback is used for course development so please take the time to respond thoughtfully.

b. Enrolment

It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that they are correctly enrolled in each subject and that the subjects are correct for their
course of study. Students should confirm their subject enrolment details online, and carefully check the census date for each
course to enable course changes without penalty.

c. Attendance

Regular attendance at lectures, seminars and tutorials is expected.

d. Email

All information updates from the program and the School, and most University communication is made through email using the
ANU student email address, which is studentnumber@anu.edu.au (eg u1234567@anu.edu.au).

Lecturers use the news forum in Wattle to make announcements to the whole class, and these messages are sent to your ANU
email account. You can choose to receive these Wattle messages singly or as a daily digest (the default setting).

You must regularly access messages sent to your ANU email account. If you wish to forward your ANU email to another address
please go to http://anumail.anu.edu.au, then go to Options, Settings and use the Mail Forwarding box at the bottom of that page.

Announcements made through email and on the Wattle course site are deemed to be made to the whole class.

 ANU Policies
ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines, which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the
University’s academic standards, and implement them. You can find the University’s education policies and an explanatory glossary
at: http://policies.anu.edu.au/

Key policies include:

Code of Practice for Student Academic Integrity

Academic Progress
Assessment of Student Learning
Assessment Review and Appeals
Course Assessment: Consultation and Finalisation
Student Feedback on Teaching and Learning

Academic Honesty
 Students are expected to have read the ANU's Code of Practice for Student Academic Integrity before the commencement of their
course. (https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_000392)

The following is an extract from the Code of Practice for Student Academic Honesty:

Any work by a student of the Australian National University must be work:

that is original
that is produced for the purposes of a particular assessment task
that gives appropriate acknowledgement of the ideas, scholarship and intellectual property of others insofar as these have
been used.

It is the responsibility of each individual student to ensure that:

they are familiar with the expectations for academic honesty both in general, and in the specific context of particular
disciplines or courses
work submitted for assessment is genuine and original
appropriate acknowledgement and citation is given to the work of others
they declare their understanding of and compliance with the principles of academic honesty on appropriate proformas and
cover sheets as required by the academic area, or by a statement prefacing or attached to a thesis
they do not knowingly assist other students in academically dishonest practice.

All breaches, careless or deliberate, are addressed. Careless breaches are addressed through academic penalties, such as
deduction of marks and resubmission. Deliberate breaches are subject to action under the Discipline Rules of the ANU
(http://about.anu.edu.au/__documents/rules/disciplinerules.pdf).

Penalties for a deliberate breach may include failing the piece of work involved, failing the course, or having candidature
terminated.

Further information can be found at http://academichonesty.anu.edu.au/

Student Support Services

Students experiencing academic or personal problems are welcome to discuss these with any member of the Faculty or to utilise
the ANU’s student support services links to which can be found at http://students.anu.edu.au/, including:

Academic Skills and Learning Centre at http://www.anu.edu.au/academicskills/;

the Counselling Centre at http://www.anu.edu.au/counsel/;
the Disability Support Unit at http://www.anu.edu.au/disabilities/.

Library
Information about the library can be found at http://anulib.anu.edu.au.
Opening hours can be accessed at http://anulib.anu.edu.au/about/open/.
For free courses in Information Skills and Computer Skills see http://ilp.anu.edu.au/.

Student Appeals and Complaints

Students who want to lodge an appeal or make a complaint associated with delivery this course should consult the ANU College
of Asia and the Pacific CAP process described here: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/students/appeals-and-complaints.

Student Feedback
ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. One of the key
formal ways students have to provide feedback is through Student Experience of Learning Support (SELS) surveys. The feedback
given in these surveys is anonymous and provides the Colleges, University Education Committee and Academic Board with
opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.
 For more information on student surveys at ANU and reports on the feedback provided on ANU courses, go to
http://unistats.anu.edu.au/surveys/selt/students/ and http://unistats.anu.edu.au/surveys/selt/results/learning/.

Crawford Student Services

The Crawford Student Services Office is located at the lower entrance of the JG Crawford building, Level 1, and is open between
9.00am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday.

Academic Skills Advisers can be contacted via the Crawford Academic Skills Wattle site
http://wattlearchive.anu.edu.au/course/view.php?id=1985