for the administrator and . . . the object of the oath, the Constitution, itself can keep this autonomy within acceptable bounds" (Ingraham and Ban 1988, 10).
|
 | | The public interest model. . . . identifies an emergent or perceived public interest as the overarching guideline for administrative action. . . . Though definition of the public interest is problematic, theorists in this group argue that definition is possible. . .. [This model argues for an] "agency perspective," a particular view of the public interest (and the public service) derived from the programs, policies, and organizational culture of the agency in which the careerist is employed. Thus, it reflects commitment to a particular government function or service and to a particular segment of the citizenry. (Ibid., 10-11)
|
While the technical models see good administration as an end in itself, the ethical models see it as "the means to a higher good." The ethical models present "an exalted view of the public service, . . . a service which is . . . 'fameworthy,' [one in which] individual morality and the public good are jointly served." Public service in the ethical models offers "a 'calling,' an opportunity to serve, an opportunity to be a part of a greater good" (ibid., 11).
|
Ingraham and Ban see a need for an alternative model, that of the public service, to incorporate both the public service and political perspectives and to address issues of "'balance' in terms of public policy processes and outcomes" (ibid., 11).
|
A public service model of political-career relations counterbalances the we-they mentality and makes good use of what can be creative tension between the two. This model "is based on the clearly normative assumption that both career administrators and political appointees have a legitimate role to play in the public policy process." It does not limit either group by or to specific functions and assumes both are guided by a larger vision of the public interest (ibid., 9, 12). Both also carry a dual responsibility:
|
| | The responsibility to develop and maintain excellent management and program skills is obvious. Less obvious, but of critical significance, is the constant responsibility to ask: Why are these skills important? For what purpose are they being utilized? [It is to be noted] . . . that this dual re-
|
|
