Exploring integrity in Australian public services: A method to benchmark public service codes of conduct

Author:

Moon Katie12ORCID,Brunoro David1,Connor James1,Dickinson Helen1ORCID,Huybers Twan1

Affiliation:

1. Public Service Research Group, School of Business University of New South Wales Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia

2. Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia

Abstract

AbstractIntegrity is an ongoing concern in the public sector. Contemporary examples include fraud incidents, ethical violations, theft, and a disregard of legal advice resulting in significant harms to the public. Public service integrity management systems are interconnected frameworks of legislation and institutions intended to reduce such incidents, including Codes of Conduct (CoCs). A CoC is typically defined as a written set of norms that outline virtuous or desired behaviours, often creating or linking to sanctions for violations. Despite matters of integrity and corruption being a high concern for citizens, no method exists to compare monitoring, reporting, and review of CoCs across jurisdictions. We developed and applied a method to assess CoC implementation using specific assessment criteria developed by reviewing available content across jurisdictions and the current literature on CoCs and integrity management. Our results reveal substantial inconsistency between jurisdictions and a lack of available or accessible data for many CoC elements. Our method serves both as a tool for analysis of the effectiveness of CoCs over time and as an assessment of how jurisdictions are currently reporting on their compliance with their own CoCs.Points for practitioners A lack of evidence exists in terms of how CoCs are monitored, reported on, and reviewed. As a first stage of a research program, we develop and apply a method to all Australian states, territories, and the Australian Public Service to compare the monitoring, reporting, and review activities undertaken by these jurisdictions. Application of the method reveals opportunities for jurisdictions to improve the availability and accessibility of CoC data collection, reporting, and review. Auditors General and Public Accounts Committees should consider this method as part of their works programs and potentially use it to inform their scrutiny programs and requirements for performance and annual reporting. Public Service Commissions could find the data useful in adapting and improving their CoC monitoring, reporting, and review systems.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science

Reference46 articles.

1. Promoting Ethics Management Strategies in the Public Sector: Rules, Values, and Inclusion in Sweden

2. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). (2020).Performance measurement and monitoring—Developing performance measures and tracking progress.https://www.anao.gov.au/work/audit‐insights/performance‐measurement‐and‐monitoring‐developing‐performance‐measures‐and‐tracking‐progress

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3