Improving public trust through good governance

JOHN MARK T. MARUQUIN

Student, Ph.D. Major in Development Management

Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte Philippines

Abstract

This paper argues that public trust is often mistrusted on the unscrupulous performance of public services and in political negotiation well-functioning public services are said to create trust in government. This is a very sensible reasoning, only part of which corresponds to reality. The relation between governance or government performance and trust can only be made when very specific circumstances are present. It is obvious that performance of the public organization has a certain impact on trust in government, but existing levels of trust in government may also have an impact on perceptions of government performance.

Keywords: Good governance, public trust, government, performance

Introduction

“Public office is a public trust”. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives (The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XI, Section 1). Public trust is considered as one of the most significant aspects in the implementation of government strategies for any country. In order for citizens to trust their government, the latter must achieve its ambitious targets to develop and provide the efficient quality of public services.

According to Avelino P. Tendero (2008) that public officers and employees of government are therefore accountable for what they do; they are enjoined to serve the people with utmost patriotism and justice and lead modest lives. From the foregoing paraphrase of the constitutional provision, those employees in the government are to conduct themselves in accordance with certain normative prescriptions and ethical standards. In a democratic policy, management of public affairs should be in accordance with the provisions of law. It is these rules of law that define the area of administrative performance. These rules are value norms, which government employees must live up to.

Public trust is perceived at interpersonal and organizational levels in which fairness, confidence, risk taking and expectations are considered its main constructs (Colesca, 2009). Public trust in public sector is essential for the functioning of government especially that it has become increasingly associated with governance. Public administration has examined trust as a basic ingredient of social capital in that it helps create networks between people in a community and helps to make these networks function smoothly (Walker et al., 2008).

Governments are always in need to respond the demands of citizens to improve the efficiency and boost the effectiveness of their public services (Siddiquee, 2008). Lot of studies has been conducted in terms of different dimensions of good governance. For instance, Egwuonwu (2011) focused on the behavioral aspects of governance that consists of accountability, justice, transparency, genuine disclosures, integrity and high performance. Others discussed good governance in terms of equity, efficiency, sustainability, transparency, accountability and security (Khan, 2013, Kefela, 2011).

A. Efficiency. In the importance of good governance, it is saving and protecting the environment by manageable use of the natural resources (UNESCAP, 2012).

B. Transparency. Transparency is the process of making decision and it is properly implemented through the regulations and rules (UNESCAP, 2012). In other words, it is the disclosure of any related information to the interested stakeholder on timely manner (Salin & Abidin, 2011).

C. Accountability. Accountability is considered as a key prerequisite of good governance for both public and private institutions (UNESCAP, 2012). Accordingly, Khan (2013) described accountability as an open government that supports good level of social and political objectives of authority, sharing, respecting the rights and empowering the equity. Thus, governments must find a balance between the requirements of accountability to the society and those of state governments (Kluvers, 2010).

Many public sector reforms have been motivated by a belief that the public trust in public services is low, and declining. Where statistics are available, though, there is little evidence of such declining trust (Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008). Furthermore, there is a wide variety within the public sector, with some services being trusted a lot (especially those in the health sector, and emergency services).Still, trust in more generic public sector categories such as “the public sector”, “civil servants” or ‘bureaucrats’ tends to be quite low when compared to other institutions. Bureaucracies tend to feature in the bottom half of ‘most trusted institutions’ rankings, yet generally well above institutions such a politicians or the press.

Do citizens trust Public Officials?

In public administration we have observed a sharp increase in attention for the public perception of government and trust more in particular, to more sophisticated multi-country analyses of trust, looking at country-level explanations for differences in trust. In this trust relation between citizens and government, it has often been assumed that outputs matter and that distrust results from low government performance. Research has however shown that the process by which services are being delivered, or the process by which policies are being implemented is at least as important. Trust is thus at least as much influenced by procedural justice as it is by outputs (Van Ryzin, 2011).

Do Public Officials trust citizens?

Things work more smoothly, it has been argued, when citizens trust their government and each other. This reduces transaction costs because there are fewer instances where trustworthiness has to be checked prior to the transaction. But what about the attitudes and opinions at the other end of the relationship: government itself? Do administrators actually trust citizens enough to involve them and to drop their suspicion? While citizens’ trust has received a lot of attention, the opposite relation has received only marginal attention (Wu, J.and Yang, Y. (2011). Expressions of such distrust are visible in officials’ unwillingness to involve citizens in decision-making, in their unwillingness to take their views seriously or in an overall relatively skeptical attitude toward citizens. The reason for such distrust can be multifaceted, ranging from negative prior experience, over a belief that citizens aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable to play a role, to a conviction that citizens have profound negative intentions when interacting with government. Official’s distrust in citizens may evoke a reciprocal reaction, leading to a mutually reinforcing dynamic. Mutual distrust has become well documented in studies of street-level bureaucracy, and especially studies focusing on interactions between welfare officials and welfare clients, where officials suspect all claimants of cheating, and where clients perceive officials not to be there to help them, but to punish them for their dependent situation. 

Trust in citizens has become very relevant in an age when governments want to reduce red tape and control- and inspection-related burdens. This has lead to innovations such as labeling or self-regulation, where companies are for instance granted exemption from regular inspections after they have proven to comply for a number of consecutive years. Systems such as sectoral self-regulation or horizontal inspection require a great deal of trust in citizens’ and companies willingness to follow the law. Replacing extensive control systems by trust-based arrangements requires a total change in officials’ thinking and may prove to be very hard when officials continue to be faced with attempts at cheating.

Public sector actors, suspicious about each other’s motives, and a political discourse fuelling citizen distrust in government culminated in the introduction of series of public sector innovations all directed at strengthening control and command systems within the public sector (Van de Walle, 2010). This strengthening happened mainly through a widespread introduction of contract-type arrangements, and through an expansion of the use of (performance) information. Contracts were introduced to regulate relationships between ministers and top officials; between ministries and agencies; between government bodies and external contractors; and between public employers and employees. Both sides of the principal-agent relationship were thought to have antagonistic interests, and contracts were a way of canalizing mutual distrust and of inserting control into the system. Performance information helped actors in the system to control others, and to call them to account.

The most important question dealt with in this paper will be: Do citizenries have a negative opinion of government because its services do not work properly, or do citizens evaluate government administrations and their performance in a negative way, because their image of government in general is a negative one?

Trust in government may be based on experiences over a long period of time, on the current situation or on expectations of the government in future the level of trust inspired by the current government, the more likely it is that a person will express specific support and trust, while long-term experience points more in the direction of diffuse support and trust.

The broad performance perspective presupposes that certain modern public reforms imply better quality of public services and hence high levels of public satisfaction and trust in government. Such an assumption of course throws up many questions, which can be debated and elaborated, both theoretically and empirically: some reform measures will affect some public services, others will not, and service quality improvements may have other origins than reforms. Quality improvements for some people may imply disadvantages for others, and quality improvements may in any case be primarily connected to political symbols and hype. People may react to purely symbolic quality improvements, while real quality improvements may be seen by some as of little significance compared with other aspects of a service, either because access to a service is limited or simply because of a lack of responsiveness. A further possibility is that people have other reasons for trusting government than satisfaction with public services. 

Conclusion

It seems upright and heroic public servants have die or get up in politics for press and public to pay attention to them. That can hardly to encourage excellence in government nor would it inspire others to emulate good work or the youth to aspire for careers in honest and competent public service. People wants to see more responsiveness, integrity, competence, efficiency, compassion and other hallmark of exemplary public service, to bring the wider public attention especially among students pondering their future.

People may be satisfied with the existence of a particular service or the availability of certain services that meet their needs. At the same time, they may also be satisfied with information concerning services, the accessibility and friendliness of the service providers they meet, the competence of service personnel, the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the services, or other factors.

If one presupposes that satisfaction with government services is trust enhancing, implying that the consumer role is important and performance is of significance for trust, one can ask whether people will react equally to all public services. One essential variable could be how universal the services are, meaning how many people they potentially cover. Public services range from those that are collective or universal, like education in most countries, which is potentially consumed by everyone, to those that are more selective and individual and target more specific groups of clients. One expectation might be that the more controlling, selective and individualized a service, the more dissatisfied the user is likely to be.

Increasing government authority by modernizing public services is therefore just a partial strategy, since actual performance is not equal to perceived performance and because differences might exist in citizens’ minds on the definition and necessity of public service performance. A one-sided focus on performance will not be sufficient, since perceptions and definitions of performance are not only created in government- citizen interactions, but also in everyday citizen-citizen relations. Restoring trust in government cannot just be based on a managerial action-plan but requires social engineering as well. The core question should therefore be how government can alter these perceptions and evaluation criteria in a way that is acceptable in a democratic society.

Public trusts have both institutional and personal aspects. People may trust both the system as such and individual actors they encounter or observe. This may include both central political leaders and actors in the administration and public service sector. Another possible combination is trust in the political-democratic system as such but distrust in current leaders or other political actors. This distrust may be based both on myths or symbols, for example distrust fashions furthered by the mass media, or else on first-hand negative experiences with government representatives. People may trust certain political and administrative leaders because of their achievements or personal charisma but not the institutional features of the political-administrative system. If we relate these basics to the distinction between diffuse and specific support, it is probable that individual elements of public trust or trust will be more related to specific support while institutional elements are linked to diffuse support.  

References:

a.   Books

Tendero, Avelino P. Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines, 2008

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article XI, Section 1

b. Electronic Publications

Colesca, S. (2009). Understanding Trust in E-government. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, (3), ISSN 1392 – 2785.

Egwuonwu, R. (2011). Behavioral Governance, Accounting and Corporate Governance Quality. Journal of Economics and International Finance.

Khan, M. (2013). E-government, GIS and Good Governance. Public Management

Kluvers, R. (2010). Mechanisms of Accountability in Local Government: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Business and Management,

Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle

Salin, A., & Abidin, Z. (2011). Being Transparent: An Evidence of a Local Authority in Malaysia. In Proceeding of International Conference on Sociality and Economics Development, 10, Singapore: Press. Retrieved from http://www.ipedr.com

Siddiquee, N. (2008). Service Delivery Innovations and Governance: The Malaysian Experience. Transforming Government People, Process and Policy, 2(3), 194-213.

UNESCAP. (2012). What is good governance? United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

Retrieved October 3, 2013 from www.uniscap.org/huest/gg/governance.htm

Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences.

Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

Walker M., et al. (2008). Trust in Government and Its Changing Dimensions: An Exploration of Environmental Policy in Hongkong. Asian Forum on Public Management, National Chi-Nan University: Taiwan. Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/63655

Wu, J. and Yang, Y. (2011) Public servants’ trust in citizen raters really matter, International Public Management Review.

  

Restoring faith and trust in government by ending corruption

By: cassandra b. paraggua

Abstract

Restore the faith and trust in the government, end the very root that kills it, corruption. Corruption is the abuse of public trust for private gain; it is a form of stealing. Systemic corruption has long been a problem in the different countries that is like a malignant tumor that it keeps on sucking the life out of the country, robbing the economy of its competitiveness as well as eroding trust in government and thereby threatening its effectiveness.  Corruption basically robs government of the ability to positively affect the lives of every individual.  Corruption deprives the economy of its full potential and erodes trust in markets and institutions. This article discusses corruption, types of corruption and what can policy makers do to end corruption to restore faith and trust in the government. When people consider the government corrupt and believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction this negatively effects social solidarity as expressed in trust in others, and reduces trust in the bodies and decisions of the authorities. Laws must be clear and durable, leaving the least possible room for discretionary action, while decisions must be made on the basis of clear criteria, and be transparent and accessible to the public.

Keywords: Corruption, government, faith and trust in the government.

Introduction

The most common definition of corruption, that is used by the World Bank (1997) and other organizations, is “the abuse of public power for private gain”.  The typical definition of corruption involves the notion of the “public” in a fundamental sense. For this reason, it is customary to regard the main focus of corruption is government as is invariably involved public officials. Corruption is the perversion or destruction of integrity or fidelity in discharging public duties and responsibilities. It entails the use of public power for private advantage in ways which transgresses some formal rule of law. (Tendero, 2008).

Trust among citizens depends, to a large extent, on the governments’ actions to fight corruption. There is plenty of historical evidence to back this assertion. Yet there are still those in power who either leave the prevention of corruption for technical experts to take care of, without adequate political support, or who hinder anti-corruption efforts to protect themselves and their allies.

If politicians were to take a look at the evidence of research alone, they would immediately draw two very simple conclusions: first, that countries with more corruption have lower levels of citizens’ trust, especially in government; and, second, countries with less corruption enjoy far higher levels of citizen trust. (Kos, 2014).

A higher level of citizens’ trust is a key factor in achieving development. So why do so many governments come up short in the fight against corruption and not do so much more to win back public trust? The answer to this question is not complicated: while citizens and society as a whole benefit from the consequences of the efficient fight against corruption, some powerful individuals and their narrow circles of allies do not have the slightest interest in benefiting anyone but themselves. We have seen the sad truth of this in recent history, when corrupt leaders managed to empty state funds belonging to citizens into their own pockets. Trust finally collapsed, leading in some cases to public demonstrations to demand change. However, too many governments still do not appreciate how important trust is for everything else they have to do, and how much benefit they can derive from building trust up (Kos, 2014).

Acts of corruption by people in power have long shaken public faith. (Williams, 2002). Corruption significantly contributes to political instability and widespread disbelief in governmental institutions and state bodies. Most equate corruption with bribery, where an illegal payment is made to a government official in return for some type of official, state-sanctioned, authoritative act that has a selective and tangible impact and that in the absence of the secret payment would not otherwise have been made (Johnston, 2005). But beyond bribery, corruption also includes kickbacks which operate much like a bribe, but where the illegal payment is made after the service is rendered, usually from a portion of the governmental award itself, and extortion where the public official threatens to use (or abuse) state power to induce the payment of a bribe. While such acts involve transactions between citizen and government official, corruption also includes graft and embezzlement, where public officials act alone to appropriate public funds or divert their use. Closely related to graft, fraud refers to the various, often complex and imaginative schemes orchestrated by officials to appropriate public funds, often with civilian accomplices. These may include establishing fake companies, listing ghost workers to pad payrolls, overbilling the government on contracts, or otherwise fixing the books to hide the disappearance of public funds. Beyond these acts commonly associated with corruption, corruption also encompasses such diverse activities as nepotism, favoritism and conflict of interest, where public-sector jobs or benefits are illegally channeled to family, friends or to the benefit of the decision-makers own interests. Even within the partisan and electoral realms, corruption encompasses a range of activities such as illegal campaign contributions, illegal expenditures, electoral fraud and vote buying (Morris, 2011).

Forms of Corruption

1.   1  The institutional location and function of the public official involved (“political corruption” versus “bureaucratic corruption”)

Whereas by definition political corruption involves “public officials” the sheer vastness of the public sector means that corruption can occur at virtually any place within the government. An easy means of differentiating forms of corruption centers on the institutional location of the public official involved (i.e., corruption within the executive branch, the legislature or the judiciary, the local government, the police, customs agents, building inspectors, etc.). (Morris, 2011)

The term “political corruption” thus tends to refer to corruption occurring at the policymaking stage or, in Eastonian terms, the input side of the political system, whereas “bureaucratic” or “administrative” corruption relates to the implementation of policy carried out by lower level officials or the output side of the equation (Bardhan 2006; Scott 1972). Because of their different functions within the system, these two forms of corruption also violate different norms. “Bureaucratic corruption” involves the violation of first-order norms (the written rules and laws that are the product of politicians’ decision making), whereas “political corruption” committed by policymakers entails the violation of more nebulous second-order norms (the often-unwritten guidelines determining how politicians should make decisions, such as impartiality and fairness. (Warren 2004)

2. 2.     The direction of influence (“bribery” versus “extortion”)

It draws a distinction between “bribery” and “extortion”. In bribery, societal interests use extra-legal payments or bribes to influence the content of state policy or its implementation. At a broader, more systemic level, this form of corrupt influence can take on the characteristics of “state capture”, whereby an entire agency or institution operates on behalf of societal interests. Extortion, by contrast, involves the use and abuse of state power by public officials to demand extra-legal payments or rents in return for providing a legitimate or illegitimate service. In extortion, the direction of influence moves from state to society, while bribery reverses the direction (Morris, 2011).

3.      The size and frequency of the transaction (“grand corruption” versus “petty corruption)

Grand corruption” involves large sums of money and usually less frequent transactions, while at the other end “petty corruption” refers to smaller and more routine payments. This distinction tends to parallel those rooted in the institutional position of the state official involved, with “grand corruption” more likely to occur among high level government officials who have limited interaction with the public, while “petty corruption” tends to take place among low-level, bureaucratic workers who regularly interact with the public. (Morris, 2011)

4.     3. Systemic framework

Though somewhat related to differences based on size and frequency, distinctions are also often based on the broader pattern of corruption within the system. This focuses not just on the individual corrupt act, but rather on the context in which the act occurs. Mark Robinson (1988), identifies three forms of corruption: “incidental” corruption, which is confined to malfeasance on the part of the individual and is thus rare; “institutional” corruption referring to certain institutions that may be riddled with corruption due largely to the absence of controls; and “systemic” corruption which reflects situations where corruption is deeply entrenched and pervasive throughout society. A similar sort of distinction contrasts “centralized” and “decentralized” corruption depending on the level of control exercised by the political elite over local officials (Bardhan, 2006).

5.      4.. Motive or purpose

It distinguishes types of corruption based on the motives, purpose or outcome of the corrupt act. One easy distinction based on motive separates corruption that promotes purely personal interests from corruption that benefits a clique, a political party or an institution which may be more systematic. Margaret Beare (1997) offers a non-exhaustive taxonomy of corruption based largely on motive or outcome. She identifies four types: “bribes/kickbacks”, which are paid or demanded in return for being allowed to do legitimate business; “election/campaign corruption”, designed to ensure continuing influence; “protection corruption”, payments in exchange for being allowed to engage in illegitimate business; and “systemic top-down corruption”, where the nation’s wealth is systematically siphoned off by the ruling elites.

In the Philippines, RA No. 3019 also known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act provides corrupt practices of public officers. Two variants of corruption have been identified as negative bureaucratic behavior in the Philippines:

1.      that which involves only civil servants like giving lucrative positions and promotions to the highest bidder and giving and accepting bribes to get a preferred position or receive lenient treatment than what is deserved, especially in cases where the employee is under administrative investigation

2.      that which involves a person or persons outside the bureaucracy either of whom initiate the act. (Tendero, 2008)

Dios and Ferrer ( 2000) proposes list of types or objects of corrupt transactions:  (a) bids, purchases, and auctions; (b) sale of policies and rules; (c) rules-evasion; (d) bureaucratic or political facilitation; (e) bureaucratic or political harassment; (f) political favors and support.

The first and most easily analyzable transactions that are the subject of corruption are those involving bids and purchases. These include over- and underpricing and collusion among potential bidders of services, franchises, concessions, and asset sales. The second important type of transaction is the sale of policies or rules. Examples of these are industrial priorities; fiscal policies; regulatory rules, judicial decisions, electoral rules, etc. The bottom- line efficiency effects of such corruption are difficult to predict beforehand. Rose-Ackerman (1998) notes that it will depend on the efficiency of the rules themselves. If rules are over-extended to begin with, then to the extent that exemptions are made, then they would be welfare-enhancing. Unlike policy-for-sale, the purpose of rules-evasion is not to alter the rules themselves but to modify their application for individuals who are in principle unqualified for the benefits or are liable under the rules. Corruption to excuse tax evasion, or bribes made to officers of the court would fall under this category. Bureaucratic or political facilitation are a third type of corrupt transaction and are related to what Rose-Ackerman (1998) calls “corruption to lower costs” and what Alatas (1997) calls “transactive” corruption. Examples range from petty corruption in lower-level agencies (e.g., car registration) to buying political influence to smooth out deliberations on franchises given out by congress. Hence, an illicit exemption from a tax would be liability evasion rather than a case of facilitation. While the parties involved in facilitation and harassment are the same, i.e., private agents and public officials, the significance can be completely different. The case of harassment corresponds to what they call “extortive” corruption, such as when tax collectors summon taxpayers and minutely go over tax returns as part of a shakedown or when politicians initiate an investigation of their potential opponents as part of vendetta.  Finally, political favors and investment are transactions distinguished by the fact that the result is not an immediate pecuniary benefit but a political one

Conclusion

Corruption is a phenomenon with many faces (Morris & Klesner, 2010). It is characterized by range of economic, political, administrative, social and cultural factors. It results from interactions, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses in socio political systems. Corruption kills people’s trust and faith in the ability of the government to mobilize projects for the benefit of the people and even undermines government efforts to mobilize society to help fight corruption and leads the public to routinely dismiss government promises to fight corruption. Nonetheless, fighting corruption is a sure way of boosting public trust, the government just need to do enough to address it for increasing trust would bring widespread benefits. It is difficult to measure exactly how government gain citizen’s trust- but here are some ways that policy maker can do to restore the trust and faith of the public.

1.      The government must demonstrate through consistent example that it has the political will to greatly reduce corruption.

2.      Public officials, in all branches and all levels of government, and private persons found guilty of major corrupt activities should, after a fair trial, be punished with heavy sentences, including imprisonment and seizure of assets. The cases against them should be widely publicized. Laws should be amended periodically to assure that penalties are sufficiently heavy to serve as a deterrent to corruption when enforced.

3.      The Ombudsman must be impartial and willing to investigate thoroughly all major allegations of official corruption, without favoritism or political considerations.

4.      Make data readily available. One of the most promising means of regaining trust is making data – all data, on everything from pothole repairs to emergency response times – open and accessible to the public. Be transparent also about policy making. Governments today should do more than provide raw data on public services – they must present information in simple, easily digestible ways to show citizens what their taxes are funding.

5.      Involve citizens in policy. Citizens must be consulted on a big policy decision. Researches shows that people who participate in policymaking are more likely to understand the complexities face by government.

6.      Bring all government services online. The ability to pay taxes, order a passport or register a business online does more than cut out bureaucracy and save time – digitizing services can have a significant cultural impact on citizens and there should be a website where citizens can anonymously email information about suspect or known corrupt activity for investigation.

7.      The private sector should do more to police its ranks to discourage corrupt relations with government agencies, in revenue collection and procurement. Compliance and integrity programs for businesses to pledge not to bribe public officials, to report corruption, and to embed such behavior as standard corporate practice should be undertaken.
8.      Further reform public sector procurement. Expand the public sector e-procurement system. Reform the project selection process and bidding procedures to reduce potential corruption. Otherwise intensify efforts to reduce waste in public expenditures.
9.      Increase public sector transparency. Issue an executive order instructing all government agencies to release appropriate information on government policies and procurement, when requested by the public. Expand e-governance.
10.  Undertake civil service reforms, reducing the number of political appointments and strengthening career civil service professionals in more senior positions. Pay competitive salaries to employees of critical agencies and improve all public sector salaries when budgets allow, while rationalizing positions.
11.  Strengthen the anti-corruption legal framework like the (a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (b) Ombudsman Act amendments, and (c) Whistleblowers Protection Act

A successful fight against corruption influences a range of fronts, such as transparency; accountability; nondiscrimination; meaningful social, economic and civic participation; legal and income equality; and more. All of this matter to citizens in every country. Any improvement in these fronts shows that government genuinely cares about people and their welfare, and will be reflected in a higher trust level.

With the many forms of corruption and differences across nations and localities, there is no single best way to fight it. Compassion. Real Change, is what we really need right now. Let us all help the government in fighting corruption.  Start with our self, for change starts with us and in us. Together let us solve the ills and weaknesses such as, corruption to their very root and “restore faith and trust in government.

References

Alatas, S. H. (1990), Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Consequences, Aldershot, Avebury.

Bardhan, P. (2006), “The Economist’s Approach to the Problem of Corruption”, World Development 34(2), 341–48.

Beare, M. E. (1997), “Corruption and Organized Crime: Lessons from History”, Crime, Law and Social Change 28,  155–72.

de Dios, E. S., & Ferrer, R. D. (2000). Corruption in the Philippines: Framework and context.

Johnston, M. (2005), Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power and Democracy, Cambridge University Press.

Kos, D. (2014). Tackle corruption to restore trust. OECD Forum. (OECD, Ed.) Retrieved from   

         www.oecd.org/forum/oecdyearbook/tackle-corrupt

Morris, S. D. (2011). Forms of Corruption. CESifo DICE Report.

Morris, S. D., & Klesner, J. L. (2010). Corruption and Trust: Theoretical Consideration and Evidence from Mexico: SAGE.

Robinson, M. (1998), “Corruption and Development: An Introduction”, in M. Robinson, ed., Corruption and Development, Frank Cass, London, 1–14.

Rose-Ackerman, S. [1998]  “Corruption and the global econopmy”, in G. Shabbir Cheema, ed. Corruption and integrity improvement initiatives in developing countries, 1998, Management Development and Governance Division,  United Nations Development Programme.

Shleifer and Vishny [1993] “Corruption”, Quarterly Jourunal of Economics

Tendero, A. (2008). Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines.

Warren, M. E. (2004), “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American Journal of Political Science 48(2),  328–43.

Williams, H. (2000). Core Factor of Police Corruption Across the World. Forum in Crime Society Vol 2, 1. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/core_factors.pdf

World Bank [1997a] World development report: the state in a changing world. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Nepotism: A bestowed privilege or breach of professionalism

By Ronalyn R. Tagudin

Ph.D. Development Management Student

ABSTRACT

Nepotism should not be considered as a habitual management practice. It is considered illegal and immoral because it impedes the right of someone to fairness and breach the ethics in public service. Making nepotism as a relative choice could bring negative social and economic impact. In the studies of  Puiu (2004), “nepotism upsets trust and resulting in unethical management, owing to the ability of a select few to weaken control measures on account of their personal relationship with the policy-maker, and by reason of their not being easily dismissed or replaced by others”. Workforces may stop giving their best and accept a career at their current level. The favored treatment of one individual over another, without taking into account the relative merit of the respective individuals, signifies nothing but victimization of an individual. Thus one has to avoid nepotism because this is not a bestowed privilege to someone and considered as breach of professionalism, therefore it is contrary to the idea of Adam Bellow (2003) that states “nepotism works, it feels good, and is generally the right thing to do”.

Keywords:     nepotism, illegal, immoral, breach of professionalism, unethical management 

INTRODUCTION

Most often, nepotism is considered inherent in an organization. Nowadays, there is no such thing as transactions free from family connections or kin ties especially towards a certain position. Is this an act of bestowed privilege to someone closer to the management? Maybe it’s a yes! It is considered as a battle of professionalism with regards to competence and abilities or the notion that favoritism cannot be avoided. The dilemma is that is nepotism really ethical in any perspective? Should personal loyalty and intimacy outweigh competence, seniority and the merit system? This article is an avenue to cite the intricacies of nepotism and how it works in an organization.

Nepotism in History

Looking back when authors wrote bases for the existence of nepotism in times it was noted already in America in the 18^th century. The war against nepotism started with the abolition of English inheritance practices. The trend continued in the nineteenth century, with the creation of a federal civil service based on merit and efficiency rather than on family connections. Therefore, this would herald the defeat of the principles of freedom, meritocracy and equal opportunity, which were the ideals for which people fought in national revolution (Makabenta, 2014).

In the Philippines, nepotism is not without historical antecedents. The barangay of early Philippine society was viewed more as a socio-economic unit composed of members with consanguinial ties and those related by affinity. Cooperation in the community was a function of personal connection than pre-determined programs and impersonal procedures (Tendero, 2000). These historical antecedents nurtured a tradition and a culture which considered public office more as a source of private gain than a public trust.

Nepotism as a Negative Thing

Simply, nepotism is favoring relatives. Nepotism in the workplace occurs when employers favor relatives in making employment decision, with little to no regard for anything but kinship. It is readily innate in person’s mind that nepotism as a practice is a negative thing. An example is hiring or promoting relatives solely because they are family members, with no consideration of the qualifications or merits of other job candidates or employees. There is also an instance wherein all the members and close relatives of the family occupy the highest managerial and supervisory positions belonging to different divisions and sections. This scenario is very common in government practices that may lead to declining the quality of public service. If one is an employee working hard for a position became complacent due to the fact that another person closed to the management comes in to a higher position, does fairness exists? Does freedom to opportunity is achieve? How can one be favored in terms of others just because of knowing the “man” of the organization? Thus, social war begins to grow.

            The negative notion on nepotism was supported by the study of Arash & Tumer (2008) which stated that nepotism occurs when relations are more significant than the qualification or competency, skills, and experience and it affects the performance of employees as well as performance of the organization. It involves in hiring and firing of employees just to give priorities to their favorite ones. In this regard, it breaches the principles of professionalism. We all know ethical values and we can identify cases in which behavior may be wrong. According to Puiu (2004), some actions are definitely good or definitely bad, but others may be in a grey zone and make it difficult for a person to make the right decision or to reject someone or something.

            In addition, nepotism is a version of graft and corruption exemplified by favors showered on relatives by appointing them to government positions regardless of qualifications. The practice may be viewed as an aid to responsive management if blood relatives do their share in achieving organizational goals with minimum time and effort expended. On the other hand, nepotism can be pernicious to society if the relatives in the employ of government use blood relationship as the key to open themselves to the opportunity of improving their lives at the expense of public good and general welfare. It can foster the growth of dictatorship and the formation of “political dynasties” which the 1987 constitution prohibits.

The prohibition against nepotism is articulated best in the statement made by the late Ferdinand Marcos in 1972:

“Let no man who claims to be friend, relative or ally presume to seek license because of the relationship. If he offends the new society, he should be punished like the rest.”

            However, despite those cited negative sides of nepotism, Adam Bellow (2003) contradicts those statements in his writing that states “Nepotism is widely condemned yet even more widely practiced…this is not necessarily a bad thing. Nepotism, likewise, is universally condemned but seems just as ineradicable.” In his interview, he was asked “How did nepotism earn its bad name?” then he said:

“People began to feel that the American business elite was too nepotistic, they had gotten rich and given out partnerships to sons and sons in law, and they allowed family interests to outweigh business rationale. It was the subtext of the Depression, and it had a powerful and lasting effect on our view of nepotism and family management in general. After WWII, American business went global. There was a boom in the economy, and a new era of corporate management and governance was introduced. Along with that came efficiency, meritocracy, etc. It was the era in which nepotism rules were instituted in big corporations and government. And that was a good thing. It's not my purpose to say that nepotism should be left alone, because what you get then is what you see in Nigeria, India and Brazil.”

Bellow (2003) further added that:

“The New Nepotism, an improved American version of the old, is voluntary, not coercive; it springs from the motives of children, not the interest of parents. You can get in the door, but once inside, you will be under close scrutiny. By such standards, one wonders how he would assess the worthiness of the most powerful man on earth, who would not be in the Oval Office without his father’s name and help.”

In the Philippine context, there is a legal basis why nepotism should not prevail and practiced, not just as an unethical issue but also as an illegal management actions. As stated in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission Chapter 8, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292:

“Nepotism – all appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited.”

            Indeed, nepotism undermines public trust because it makes government looks like a family business run not for the interest of the many, the public, but for the families in power. It is also bad for the morale of the organization because it goes far beyond hiring, thus it remains as a problem every time raises and promotions occur.

Effects of Nepotism

In heavily nepotism-oriented organizations, the human resource management practices cannot work independently. Hiring relatives is easy and can lead to greater trust (what we call “swift trust”) if the relations get along and share a common purpose. According to Ombanda (2018), under such conditions appointments based on competence and knowledge accumulation seem impossible. Moreover, based on the study of Riggio (2012) nepotism becomes problematic when non-relative employees feel that there is unfair favoritism, and when relatives are hired over more competent non-relatives. There are consequences of nepotism (Brookins, 2017) as follows:

1. Risk of Legal Action

Organizations who practice nepotism could be at risk of getting sued by employees. Nepotism could result in a lawsuit if an employee or potential employee has proof that a company is using unfair hiring practices and when an employer or manager shows favoritism when it comes to salary, benefits and promotions towards their family members and friends, neglecting the needs of their other employees.

2. Lower Employee Morale

When nepotism has a negative effect on a workplace, employee morale decreases, which affect how smoothly the company operates and whether employees are productive. Employees may feel unappreciated, and as a result, they may lose their motivation to achieve their goals and accomplish their day to day tasks.

3. Get Accused of Favoritism

When a manager or business owner has a pre-existing relationship with an employee, they often get accused of favoritism

4. Risk of Family Feuds

When family members and close friends work for the same company, issues from their personal lives can easily turn into problems within the workplace. These feuds can cause major workplace disruptions, which can reduce overall productivity and negatively impact employee morale.

5. Consider Fellow Employees Incompetent

When employees are hired at a company because of nepotism, other employees may question whether the family members or friends have the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to perform their jobs. If employees question their abilities to do their jobs, they may show them less respect, ignore their ideas and instructions or comment to the employees that they were only hired because of their relationships with the management.

            Furthermore, Safina (2014) stated that nepotism could lead to personnel’s demotivation, having permanent fear and negative anticipatory thinking like the fear of demoting from position being occupied. This could result to apathy, loss of self-belief and abilities of an employee. Somehow, employees could feel social alienation, the feeling of being needless in the organization. Furthermore, employees could also experience the feeling of dismissal of high-potential co-workers desperate to occupy the desired position in view of the fact that it is already occupied by a favorite. In such a case, it destructs the foundation of teamwork and it creates weak and unhealthy organizational culture characterized by intrigues.

            Stated further, these notions were even strengthened by the writing of Wechsler (2009) when he stated that nepotism includes many of the basic government ethics issues like conflict of interest, misuse of office, preferential treatment, and patronage.

As such, it was noted that nepotism has a great impact on employees and the organization as a whole. It is similar to a calm river that when there is no unethical practices, the water is steady but when you throw a stone into the water it creates waves that affects its calmness. The stone is like the practice on nepotism, the larger the stone the greater its impact to the entire organization. Then when the water gets back into its calm state, the stone settles into the bottom of the river and it will never remove unless someone intervenes to eliminate it. At a long time that it was being practiced, nepotism will be imbedded in the organization until employees are already immune of such negative state that only acceptance will lessen the injustice within it, unless someone who is strong enough to fight will lead an action to change the way it was.

Avoid Nepotism

Dealing with nepotism in the workplace can be tough, especially if you’re receiving the short end of the stick while someone else is gaining opportunities due to what you perceive as unfair favoritism. The bottom line is that the way people respond to nepotism at work depends largely on the candidate’s qualifications and self-awareness, transparency in the hiring process and other variables. But if you find yourself in a work situation where nepotism is a flagrant problem that disrupts your health, workplace satisfaction and professional growth, look to these five ways to cope (Sun, 2017).

1. Check your feelings.

Take a deep breath. So before you jump the gun and scream “nepotism,” take a step back. Focus on maintaining a professional attitude and a strong performance. The last thing an employee with a legitimate complaint against their employer wants is to not be taken seriously because of some sort of technicality.

2. Be professional - very professional.

Let’s say it’s definitely nepotism, and that person benefitting is an unqualified, obnoxious monster. You can’t control someone else’s behavior, but you can be responsible for your own. Double down on professionalism, even if you are being provoked or plan on leaving the organization. You should keep doing all the things that professional people do: be courteous, show up on time, follow through on your responsibilities and keep growing your learning and skills.

3. Document your great work at the organization.

Often in cases of nepotism, what is most frustrating is that a person feels overlooked because of opportunities given to someone perceived as less qualified. So, your best bet to get what you want (say, a raise or promotion) is to not make it about the other person. Harness data and document what amazing things you have done over time.

4. Talk it out with a carefully selected individual in the organization.

Nepotism is dangerous territory - especially depending on whom the nepotism involves. As such, employees need to proceed with caution and be careful about whom they trust with their complaints. With this in mind, if you need to report the person benefiting from nepotism, HR is almost always the wrong choice. Instead, identify a third-party ally - someone higher up than you, and thus has more power within the organization, but has no skin in the game. As with any complaint, documentation and witnesses are important.

5. Focus on what you can do for your health and happiness right now.

Dealing with nepotism at work can be stressful, and the matter won’t be resolved overnight. Patience is crucial. Some might feel compelled to act out of emotion, but it’s best to build a case with evidence and details including any information from colleagues who may be experiencing the same things you are before approaching anyone. And consider this for the bigger picture: Nepotism is everywhere. In some instances, it can hinder you professionally and be toxic. But that’s not every case. Know that people may not realize they’re acting partially. So it’s best to approach any conversation about partial behavior at work as something you’ve noticed, not something that’s been done to you.

CONCLUSION

Nepotism is not a good practice because it is against fairness, freedom, professionalism and considered illegal management practice. According to Oseña (2008), nepotism is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of its personnel.

This reminds the employees and the entire organization that the basic purpose of the objective of the prohibition against nepotism strongly indicates that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one. The court was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope of the prohibition which is textually very broad and comprehensive. If not within the exceptions, it is a form of corruption that must be nipped in the bud or abated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly head.

Nepotism is, not a petty offense. Its deleterious effect on government cannot be over-emphasized. And it is a stubborn evil (Oseña, 2008). The objective should be to eliminate nepotic acts, hence, erroneous decisions allowing nepotism cannot be given immunity from review, especially judicial review. Therefore nepotism must be avoided by all means, thus the idea of Bellow (2003) is being argued and rejected as there are legal basis that supports the unethical side of favoring nepotism.

REFERENCES

Arash, H., Tumer, M. (2008). Nepotism, Favoritism and Cronyism: A Study of Their Effects on Job Stress and Job Satisfaction in the Banking Industry of North Cyprus. Social Behavior and Personality. Vol. 36(9), pp. 1237-1250. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Bellow, Adam. (2003). In Praise of Nepotism. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/11081/in-praise-of-nepotism-by-adam-bellow/9780385493895/. Retrieved, January 22, 2019.

Brookins, Miranda. (2017). Consequences of Nepotism. https://bizfluent.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Makabenta, Yen. (2014). Of Course, It’s Nepotism. The Manila Times. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Ombanda, Paul Olendo. (2018). Nepotism and Job Performance in the Private and Public Organizations in Kenya. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 8, Issue 5 ISSN 2250-3153. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.8.5.2018.p7762. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Oseña, Meyrick Andrew S. Ll.B. (2008). The Quickfinder Political Law

Puiu, Silvia. (2004). Ethics Management in Public Sector – Background and Tools. www.sciencedirect.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Riggio, Ronald E. Ph.D. (2012). Is Nepotism a Good Thing or Bad? https://www.psychologytoday.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Safina, Dinara. (2014). Favouritism and Nepotism in an Organization: Causes and Effects. www.sciencedirect.com. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.

Sun, Carolyn. (2017). 5 Simple Ways to Handle Nepotism in the Workplace. https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/302245. Retrieved, January 22, 2019.

Tendero, Avelino P. (2000). Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the Philippines Revised Edition

The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission Chapter 8, Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292

Wechsler, Robert. (2009). Why Nepotism Is Relatively Unethical. www.cityethics.org. Retrieved, January 20, 2019.